MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961863869 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20180208

Patients’ and caregivers’ perspectives on factors that influence understanding of and adherence to hospital discharge instructions: a qualitative study

2019· article· en· W2961863869 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Karen Okrainec, Shoshana Hahn‐Goldberg, Howard Abrams, Chaim M. Bell, Christine Soong, Michelle Hart, Beverley Shea, Sandra Schmidt, Amy Troup, Lianne Jeffs

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaBaycrest HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineQualitative researchTransitional careHospital dischargePsychological resilienceHealth careFamily medicineNursingPsychologyIntensive care medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many patients have difficulty understanding and adhering to discharge instructions once home from hospital. We assessed patient and family caregiver perspectives on factors that influence understanding of and adherence to discharge instructions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews of participants aged 18 years or more enrolled in a multicentre mixed-methods study who were discharged from 3 acute care hospitals across Ontario with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pneumonia. Patients were recruited between March and November 2016. We used directed content analysis to derive themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants (16 patients and 11 family members) described 5 themes that affected their understanding of and adherence to discharge instructions: 1) the role of caregivers, 2) relationships with inpatient and outpatient health care providers, 3) previous hospital stay, 4) barriers to accessing postdischarge care and 5) system-level processes. Subthemes highlighted the importance participants attributed to who provides the instructions, the development of resilience and advocacy through previous admissions, the benefits of addressing language and physical disability barriers, reviewing instructions in a unhurried manner, and ensuring that written instructions are meaningful and actionable. INTERPRETATION: Care transition interventions targeting improved communication are unlikely to improve understanding of and adherence to discharge instructions on their own. A patient-centred framework that promotes positive relationships with a patient's circle of care, reflects previous experiences with discharge, addresses equity barriers, and enhances strategies for patient and caregiver engagement at the time of discharge may optimize understanding and adherence once the patient is home.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207