ReviewmHealth2024
Barriers to hospital-at-home acceptance: a systematic review of reasons for patient refusal.
Review in mHealth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation determinants, strategies and outcomes for scale-up of hospital-at-home: a systematic review.Implementation science communications · 2026Pooled it
- Promoting dignity as a core concept of healthcare: An opinion piece from an occupational therapy perspective.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Enhancing Clinical Decision Support with Adaptive Iterative Self-Query Retrieval for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhancing utilisation of Hospital in the Home for intravenous diuretic therapy: a retrospective study of barriers and estimated bed substitution in general medicine inpatients with decompensated heart failure.Internal medicine journal · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hospital-at-home (H@H) models have gained recognition as a safe and potentially cost-effective solution for the current rising global healthcare needs. However, despite these models' potential, their adoption has been limited partly due to patients refusing care at home. This systematic review analyses the reasons behind their refusal. Methods: We searched five databases: Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, limiting our search to papers from 2005 to 2024. Our search focused on papers reporting patient-provided reasons for declining treatment in a H@H setting without language or country restrictions. In addition to reasons for refusal, we extracted patient demographics and predictors for refusal to ensure a broad understanding of the factors influencing patient decisions. The quality of the studies included was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. Results: From the 1,067 articles identified, seven met our inclusion criteria. The papers reported reasons from 418 patients participating in diverse H@H models from the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, and Singapore, primarily focusing on acute home-based care. The most common reasons for declination included concerns about model effectiveness, safety at home, preference for in-hospital care, physician advice, family burden, and visitor concerns. Additionally, common significant demographic factors associated with decliners were the enrollment site, partnership or marital status, risk of adverse outcomes, and previous healthcare utilization. Conclusions: Understanding patients' motivations for declining H@H is crucial for its successful implementation. Targeted communication strategies and collaboration between healthcare providers are paramount to ensure that patients understand the benefits and safety of H@H models. Future research should explore effective communication and engagement techniques to address patient apprehensions and broaden H@H adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.