The Hospital at Home Model vs Routine Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure: A Survey of Patients’ Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients with heart failure (HF) experience recurrent hospitalizations and may prefer a Hospital at Home (HaH) model over routine hospitalization. Methods We administered a 9-item questionnaire on perceived effectiveness, safety, convenience, and acceptability of a HaH model among patients hospitalized for HF at 2 academic hospitals in Ontario. The primary outcome was HaH care acceptability, defined as a preference for or neutrality to HaH care over routine hospitalization. We used partial Spearman rank correlations (ρ) and multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore associations with outcomes. Results Of 297 eligible patients, 269 (90.6%) completed the questionnaire. The mean age was 76.2 (standard deviation, 12.3) years; 48.3% were female; and 70.5% lived in their own home, commonly with a relative or caregiver (67.9%). As many as 211 patients (78.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73.0%-83.2%) found HaH care acceptable, with 169 (62.8%; 95% CI, 56.8%-68.6%) preferring HaH care over routine hospitalization. Perceived convenience (ρ, 0.57; P < 0.001) and safety (ρ, 0.37; p < 0.001) were associated with HaH acceptability, whereas perceived effectiveness was not (ρ, 0.14; P = 0.021). A college (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.96; 95% CI, 2.01-17.62; P = 0.001) or university (aOR, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.07-12.06; P = 0.039) education was associated with greater odds of HaH acceptability, whereas residing in a caregiver's home was associated with lower odds (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI 0.14-0.84; P = 0.019). Conclusions A majority of patients with HF perceived HaH care to be an acceptable alternative to routine hospitalization, prioritizing perceived convenience and safety over effectiveness. Postsecondary education and living independently without caregiver support were associated with HaH acceptability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".