SynthesisImplementation science communications2026
Implementation determinants, strategies and outcomes for scale-up of hospital-at-home: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHospital-at-Home (HaH) has been shown to be clinically and cost effective, but many programs struggle to scale. We conducted a systematic review of HaH studies reporting implementation contexts, strategies and outcomes with the primary aim to synthesise the implementation evidence on HaH. Our secondary aim was to develop a framework of HaH implementation outcome indicators for future studies to apply.
methodsWe searched the literature PubMed, Embase and Scopus, for publications from 2012 to 2022. We included studies related to HaH that included at least one implementation context and at least one implementation outcome variable, excluding clinical outcomes measures. At least two reviewers independently selected studies, abstracted data and assessed quality. We coded the implementation determinants to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR); implementation strategies to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC); and implementation outcomes to the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) frameworks.
resultsWe included 27 studies in the final review, which reported 24 CFIR contextual factors, 25 ERIC strategies, and all domains of the RE-AIM evaluation framework. The most commonly reported implementation determinant, identified in six studies, was information technology infrastructure, which included streamlining documentation processes and improving access to patient records. Five studies described the following implementation factors: (i) work infrastructure, focusing on organising manpower effectively; (ii) capability of innovation deliverers, referring to staff posessing the necessary skills to perform their roles; and (iii) local conditions, such as the geographical challenges associated with HaH. The most frequently referenced implementation strategies were conducting ongoing training (nine studies), creating new clinical teams (eight studies), and promoting adaptability (seven studies). All assessed implementation outcomes were aligned to the RE-AIM framework, with volume of admissions, patient-reported experiences or outcome measures, and home visit frequency being most commonly reported (four studies each). The majority of implementation measures lacked a common denominator, and use of validated tools across studies was lacking.
conclusionsWe identified a list of implementation determinants, strategies and outcomes that can be used to inform scale-up of HaH, and have developed a framework for consistent reporting of HaH implementation studies grounded onto RE-AIM.
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.