Cited by 30Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Population risk stratification tools and interventions for chronic disease management in primary care: a systematic literature review

Open access
Golinelli, Davide, Pecoraro, Valentina, Tedesco, Dario, Negro, Antonella, Berti, Elena, Camerlingo, Maria Domenica, Alberghini, Lucia, Lippi Bruni, Matteo +2 more·2025·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Population risk stratification (RS) tools have been proposed to tailor interventions, prioritize resources, and proactively manage high-risk individuals with chronic diseases in primary care settings. This study aims to explore the available evidence on the use of population RS tools in primary care settings, specifically evaluating the impact of targeted interventions based on RS tools on selected chronic patients and healthcare utilization outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted across multiple electronic databases to identify relevant articles assessing the impact of targeted interventions based on RS tools in the management of chronic disease patients within primary care settings. We included studies meeting the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or before-after studies (BAs); adults with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; interventions relying on RS tools; comparators with or without RS tools; and outcomes including Emergency Department (ED) visits, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, mortality, and costs. RESULTS: A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising one RCT, two CCTs, and four controlled BAs. The findings revealed mixed effects of interventions on patients identified using RS tools. Among the included studies, four reported significant reductions in ED visits. Two studies reported an increase in outpatient visits. Hospitalization rates were reduced in three studies, and two studies reported significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the impact on healthcare costs was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the effectiveness of RS tools for chronic disease management in primary care settings remains limited. While some studies demonstrated positive outcomes in reducing hospitalizations, ED visits, and mortality, the overall impact on outpatient service use and healthcare costs varied. Further high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of RS tools in chronic disease management within primary care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-025-12690-0

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inpatient and acute care settings commonly use inpatient diagnostic error triggers and EHR-based interventions, whereas outpatient and primary care settings rely more on population risk-stratification tools and ambulatory e-triggers targeting missed follow-up or unexpected ED visits.

    “Inpatient and acute care settings commonly use inpatient diagnostic error triggers [375] and EHR-based interventions [376], whereas outpatient and primary care settings rely more on population risk-stratification tools [377] and ambulatory e-triggers targeting missed follow-up or unexpected ED visits [378].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [377]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Golinelli, D., Pecoraro, V., Tedesco, D., Negro, A., Berti, E., Camerlingo, M. D., Alberghini, L., Lippi Bruni, M., Rolli, M., & Grilli, R.
Affiliations
  • Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Della Romagna (IT)
  • Regione Emilia-Romagna (IT)
  • University of Parma (IT)
Corresponding author
Golinelli, Davide
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2025-04-10
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
526-526
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409289218
Cited by
30
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 7
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca (Complementary National Plan PNC-I.1 "Research initiatives for innovative technologies and pathways in the health and welfare sector” D.D. 931 of 06/06/2022, PNC0000002 DARE - Digital Lifelong Prevention." - CUP: G65E23000150006)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
chronic disease management, primary care, targeted interventions, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, emergency department visits, hospitalization, mortality, health care utilization, health care costs, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Humans, Primary Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Risk Assessment, Disease Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review