Patients’ and caregivers’ perspectives on factors that influence understanding of and adherence to hospital discharge instructions: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".