Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42688197›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Development and validation of dual-time-window readmission prediction models under China's medical insurance multi-payment reform.

Ying Guan, Xianhao Chen, Ting Zhang, Liyu Zhao, Ru Meng, Fengqi Tang, Zaixiang Tan, Xinru Huang

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 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

8 authors.

Ying Guan *School of Management, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Xianhao Chen *School of Medical Imaging, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Ting Zhang *School of Management, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Liyu Zhao *School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Ru Meng *School of Management, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Fengqi Tang *School of Management, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Zaixiang Tan *School of Management, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Xinru Huang *School of Management, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Readmission is an important indicator of healthcare quality, reflecting continuity of care, treatment outcomes, and the quality of discharge management. However, existing readmission prediction studies have primarily focused on 30-day readmission as the primary outcome, with limited attention to differences in the underlying risk mechanisms, predictive performance, and clinical applicability across different readmission time windows. Meanwhile, under the context of China's multi-payment reform and the Coordinated Tripartite Medical Reform, limited evidence is available on the development of readmission prediction models based on real-world data and their application to healthcare quality monitoring and the management of high-risk patients. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate 15-day and 30-day all-cause same-hospital readmission prediction models using real-world hospitalization data, compare the predictive factors and model performance across different readmission time windows, and provide empirical evidence to support healthcare quality monitoring and risk management under the ongoing payment reform. Methods: A single-center retrospective design was adopted, and data from 57,677 hospitalizations at a large tertiary hospital in China between January 2021 and July 2025 were collected. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed for 15-day and 30-day all-cause same-hospital readmissions, respectively. Model performance was evaluated using the AUC, Brier score, calibration plots, bootstrap internal validation, and temporal external validation. Differences in predictor associations between the two readmission time horizons were further examined. Results: The 15-day and 30-day readmission rates were 9.47 and 10.92%, respectively. The 15-day model achieved an AUC of 0.840 (95% CI: 0.828-0.843) and a Brier score of 0.0620; the 30-day model achieved an AUC of 0.820 (95% CI: 0.810-0.825) and a Brier score of 0.0735. Both AUCs were statistically significant. Both models demonstrated good discrimination and calibration, with the 15-day model consistently outperforming the 30-day model across all performance metrics. In the temporal external validation, the model achieved an AUC of 0.810 and a Brier score of 0.136, indicating good generalizability. Age, LOS, surgical status, and number of secondary diagnoses were independently associated with higher odds of readmission (overall Conclusion: This study developed and validated dual-time-horizon readmission prediction models based on real-world data, extending the conventional approach of single-horizon readmission risk assessment. The models provide a methodological framework for risk stratification and healthcare quality monitoring across different post-discharge periods. They may support early discharge risk screening, facilitate prioritization of transitional care resources for high-risk patients, and provide empirical evidence to inform quality assessment, risk adjustment, and management decision-making under the multi-payment reform and the Coordinated Tripartite Medical Reform.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformPatient ReadmissionChinaFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesTime Factors15-day readmission30-day readmissioncoordinated tripartite medical reformdual-time-window readmissionlogistic regressionmulti-payment reform

Identifiers

PMID42688197
PMCPMC13533931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.