ArticleJAMIA open2024
Incorporating patient, caregiver, and provider perspectives in the co-design of an app to guide Hospital at Home admission decisions: a qualitative analysis.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Pediatric Health Risk Stratification Using an AI-Driven Framework in Children Aged 2 to 8 Years: Design and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Hospital at Home (HaH) programs currently lack decision support tools to help efficiently navigate the complex decision-making process surrounding HaH as a care option. We assessed user needs and perspectives to guide early prototyping and co-creation of 4PACS (Partnering Patients and Providers for Personalized Acute Care Selection), a decision support app to help patients make an informed decision when presented with discrete hospitalization options. Methods: From December 2021 to January 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone with patients and caregivers recruited from Atrium Health's HaH program and physicians and a nurse with experience referring patients to HaH. Interviews were evaluated using thematic analysis. The findings were synthesized to create illustrative user descriptions to aid 4PACS development. Results: In total, 12 stakeholders participated (3 patients, 2 caregivers, 7 providers [physicians/nurse]). We identified 4 primary themes: attitudes about HaH; 4PACS app content and information needs; barriers to 4PACS implementation; and facilitators to 4PACS implementation. We characterized 3 user descriptions (one per stakeholder group) to support 4PACS design decisions. User needs included patient selection criteria, clear program details, and descriptions of HaH components to inform care expectations. Implementation barriers included conflict between app recommendations and clinical judgement, inability to adequately represent patient-risk profile, and provider burden. Implementation facilitators included ease of use, auto-populating features, and appropriate health literacy. Conclusions: The findings indicate important information gaps and user needs to help inform 4PACS design and barriers and facilitators to implementing 4PACS in the decision-making process of choosing between hospital-level care options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.