接受医院上门服务的障碍:对患者拒绝原因的系统回顾。

IF 2.2 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES mHealth Pub Date : 2024-08-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.21037/mhealth-24-23
Cesar A Gomez-Cabello, Sahar Borna, Sophia M Pressman, Syed Ali Haider, Antonio J Forte, Jennifer B Cowart, Michael J Maniaci
{"title":"接受医院上门服务的障碍:对患者拒绝原因的系统回顾。","authors":"Cesar A Gomez-Cabello, Sahar Borna, Sophia M Pressman, Syed Ali Haider, Antonio J Forte, Jennifer B Cowart, Michael J Maniaci","doi":"10.21037/mhealth-24-23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74181,"journal":{"name":"mHealth","volume":"10 ","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11557161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers to hospital-at-home acceptance: a systematic review of reasons for patient refusal.\",\"authors\":\"Cesar A Gomez-Cabello, Sahar Borna, Sophia M Pressman, Syed Ali Haider, Antonio J Forte, Jennifer B Cowart, Michael J Maniaci\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/mhealth-24-23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"mHealth\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11557161/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"mHealth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-24-23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"mHealth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-24-23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医院到家(H@H)模式已被公认为是一种安全且具有潜在成本效益的解决方案,可满足当前日益增长的全球医疗保健需求。然而,尽管这些模式具有潜力,但其采用却受到限制,部分原因是患者拒绝在家接受治疗。本系统性综述分析了患者拒绝的原因:我们检索了五个数据库:方法:我们检索了五个数据库:Embase、谷歌学术、PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science,搜索范围仅限于 2005 年至 2024 年的论文。我们的搜索重点是在没有语言或国家限制的情况下,在 H@H 环境中报告患者提供的拒绝治疗原因的论文。除拒绝原因外,我们还提取了患者的人口统计学特征和拒绝的预测因素,以确保广泛了解影响患者决定的因素。我们使用 2018 版混合方法评估工具(MMAT)对纳入研究的质量进行了评估:在确定的 1067 篇文章中,有 7 篇符合我们的纳入标准。这些论文报告了来自美国、英国、西班牙和新加坡的418名参与不同H@H模式的患者的原因,主要集中在急性期家庭护理方面。最常见的放弃原因包括对模式有效性的担忧、居家安全、对院内护理的偏好、医生建议、家庭负担以及探视者的担忧。此外,与放弃者相关的常见重要人口统计学因素包括注册地点、伴侣或婚姻状况、不良后果风险以及之前的医疗保健使用情况:结论:了解患者拒绝加入 H@H 的动机对其成功实施至关重要。有针对性的沟通策略和医疗服务提供者之间的合作对于确保患者了解 H@H 模式的益处和安全性至关重要。未来的研究应探索有效的沟通和参与技巧,以消除患者的疑虑并扩大 H@H 的采用范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Barriers to hospital-at-home acceptance: a systematic review of reasons for patient refusal.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring online health resources and self-care among irritable bowel syndrome patients: analyzing internet use and AI chatbot interactions. Not just a Barbie in hijab: participant perspectives on culturally tailoring a virtual health assistant for Bangladeshi immigrants in the US promoting colorectal cancer screening. Development, usability, and preliminary efficacy of a virtual reality experience to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors in children: pilot randomized controlled trial. Telehealth adoption for substance use and mental health disorders in Minnesota and North Dakota: a quasi-experimental study. Feasibility and reliability to assess the motor development of infants exposed to gestational COVID-19 using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale remotely.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1