Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42225368›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

How and why digital information interventions support patients and carers during hospital-to-home transitions: a protocol for a realist systematic review.

Evgenia Stepanova, Matthew Cooper, Lauren Lawson, Vicki Harris, Abbie Rance, Andy Husband, Fabiana Lorencatto, Wade Tovey, Elise Crayton, Clare L Tolley and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Evgenia StepanovaPatient Safety Research Collaboration, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK evgenia.stepanova2@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7397-299X
Matthew CooperPatient Safety Research Collaboration, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5915-2429
Lauren LawsonPatient Safety Research Collaboration, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0433-5214
Vicki HarrisNewcastle Health Research Partnership & Clinical Research Directorate, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abbie RanceConnected Voice, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Andy HusbandSchool of Pharmacy, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-8278
Fabiana LorencattoUniversity College London, London, UK.
Wade ToveyNorth East Social Care Advisors CIC, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Elise CraytonCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.
Clare L TolleySchool of Pharmacy, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Hamde NazarPatient Safety Research Collaboration, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3168-5386

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe transition from hospital to home is a vulnerable stage in the patient pathway. Patients and carers often report unmet information needs regarding diagnoses, medication changes, follow-up arrangements and escalation pathways during the post-hospital discharge period. Digital information interventions-such as electronic health records, patient portals or remote communication systems-have been proposed to improve discharge pathways. However, evidence on their impact is unproven. The aim of this review is to understand what works for whom, how, why and in what circumstances in relation to digital information interventions during the hospital-to-home journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pawson's realist review approach will be used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and reporting standards will also be followed. The review will follow five steps: (1) Development of the initial programme theory; (2) evidence search; (3) selection and appraisal of data; (4) extraction and organisation of data and (5) data synthesis and analysis. The search will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase; PsycINFO; Web of Science and Cochrane Library and supplemented with citation tracking, grey literature, relevant organisational websites, programme evaluation reports and through consultation with stakeholders. The realist review will be an iterative process, and the initial realist programme theory will be tested (confirmed, refuted or refined) in response to the data searches and stakeholder discussions. Patient and public involvement and engagement will be embedded throughout the review. Patients, carers and health and care stakeholders will contribute to refining the initial programme theory, interpreting emerging programme theory and co-developing dissemination outputs to ensure findings remain grounded in lived realities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review as it involves secondary analysis of published literature. The review will be conducted in accordance with principles of research integrity, transparency and responsible stakeholder involvement. Findings will inform the co-design of future digital discharge interventions and contribute to national priorities around digital transformation, safety and equity in transitional care. Dissemination will include conference presentations, a peer-reviewed journal article and accessible summaries co-developed with stakeholders to support equitable implementation and impact.

Indexed as

CaregiversPatient DischargeDigital HealthDigital MediaElectronic Health RecordsHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicDigital TechnologyHealth ServicesHospitals, PublicHospital to Home TransitionTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID42225368
PMCPMC13239572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.