Ref (type)	Population	Outcome, Interventions	Results and statistical analysis	Effect size	Favours
All-cause mortality
[15] Systematic review	5308 people 28 RCTs in this analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality 389/2587 (15%) with disease management programme 492/2721 (18%) with usual care	OR 0.80 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93 P = 0.003 RCTs of multidisciplinary treatment were generally small, involving highly selected patient populations (see further information on studies for more details)	Small effect size	disease management programme
[16] Systematic review	Number of people in analysis not reported 30 RCTs in this analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality with disease management programme with usual care Absolute results not reported	ARR –3% 95% CI –5% to –1% P <0.01 Benefit of the intervention was dependent on age, severity of disease, guideline-based treatment at baseline, and disease management programme modalities	Effect size not calculated	disease management programme
[17] Systematic review	7532 people 27 RCTs in this analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality 613/3867 (16%) with multidisciplinary programme 661/3580 (18%) with control (not further defined)	RR 0.79 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92 P = 0.002 There was significant heterogeneity among RCTs (P = 0.04); the review identified 2 RCTs that were outliers as potential sources of heterogeneity	Small effect size	multidisciplinary programme
[17] Systematic review	7213 people 26 RCTs in this analysis Sensitivity analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality with multidisciplinary programme with control (not further defined) Absolute results not reported	RR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95 P = 0.002 Sensitivity analysis excluding 1 outlier removed heterogeneity with only a small reduction in results for effectiveness	Small effect size	multidisciplinary programme
[17] Systematic review	553 people 3 RCTs in this analysis Subgroup analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality 35/316 (11%) with televideo or remote monitoring-based programme 51/237 (22%) with control (not further defined)	RR 0.49 95% CI 0.33 to 0.73 P = 0.0004	Moderate effect size	televideo or remote monitoring-based programme
[17] Systematic review	3384 people 11 RCTs in this analysis Subgroup analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality 220/1679 (13%) with programmes incorporating contact by telephone or mail 279/1705 (16%) with control (not further defined)	RR 0.70 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94 P = 0.02	Small effect size	programmes incorporating contact by telephone or mail
[17] Systematic review	1811 people 11 RCTs in this analysis Subgroup analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality 149/890 (17%) with programmes consisting of home visits 183/921 (20%) with control (not further defined)	RR 0.87 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06 P = 0.17		Not significant
[17] Systematic review	1784 people 3 RCTs in this analysis Subgroup analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality 209/982 (21.3%) with programmes delivered in hospital, clinic, or general practice 170/802 (21.2%) with control (not further defined)	RR 1.00 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20 P = 0.98		Not significant
[18] Systematic review	3918 people 22 RCTs in this analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality with multidisciplinary programmes with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.69 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85	Small effect size	multidisciplinary programme
[18] Systematic review	Number of RCTs and people included in subgroup analysis not reported Subgroup analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality with programmes involving face-to-face contact with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.63 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91	Small effect size	programmes involving face-to-face contact
[18] Systematic review	Number of RCTs and people included in subgroup analysis not reported Subgroup analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality with programmes involving face-to-face contact plus telephone contact with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.68 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06		Not significant
[18] Systematic review	Number of RCTs and people included in subgroup analysis not reported Subgroup analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality with programmes involving telephone (non face-to-face) management with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.82 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40		Not significant
[19] Systematic review	2060 people 12 RCTs in this analysis	Rate of all-cause mortality 117/1001 (12%) with pharmacist care 136/1059 (13%) with no pharmacist care	OR 0.84 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15		Not significant
[20] Systematic review	6133 people 19 RCTs in this analysis	All-cause mortality 390/3320 (12%) with remote patient monitoring 397/2813 (14%) with usual care	RR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95 P = 0.006	Small effect size	remote patient monitoring
[21] Systematic review	5563 people 15 RCTs in this analysis	All-cause mortality 332/2948 (11%) with structured telephone support 332/2615 (13%) with usual care	RR 0.88 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01 P = 0.08		Not significant
[21] Systematic review	2710 people 11 RCTs in this analysis	All-cause mortality 147/1410 (10%) with telemonitoring 200/1300 (15%) with usual care	RR 0.66 95% CI 0.54 to 0.81 P = 0.00005	Small effect size	telemonitoring
[22] RCT 3-armed trial	1049 people hospitalised because of heart failure, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II to IV	Rate of all-cause mortality 18 months 83/344 (24%) with intensive disease management programme 99/339 (29%) with usual care	Significance not assessed The RCT was not powered to assess mortality alone The results from this large RCT do not correlate with the results of the 6 systematic reviews reported (see further information on studies for details)
[23] RCT	1518 people having outpatient care for stable chronic heart failure with mainly NYHA class II or III symptoms	All-cause mortality up to 1 year after completion of the trial 189/760 (25%) with previous telephone monitoring by specialised nurses 197/758 (26%) with previous usual care	RR 0.94 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16 P = 0.59		Not significant
[23] RCT	1518 people having outpatient care for stable chronic heart failure with mainly NYHA class II or III symptoms	All-cause mortality up to 3 years after completion of the trial 326/760 (43%) with previous telephone monitoring by specialised nurses 308/758 (41%) with previous usual care	RR 1.02 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20 P = 0.73		Not significant