Results Summary

What was the research about?

When patients go home after a hospital stay, they may still need help. Having support is important to help patients recover and prevent them from having to go back to the hospital. Patients may not know how to plan follow-up care or get help from community organizations. Patients who live in rural areas may have a hard time getting support close to where they live.

In this study, the research team compared a group of patients receiving standard support with a group in a new program. The new program was designed to support people living in rural areas when they go home from the hospital. The team looked to see if patients in the new program went back to the hospital less than those who weren’t in the program.

What were the results?

In the first 30 days after going home, patients in the new program had fewer hospital stays than those who weren’t in the program.

The two groups didn’t differ in

  • The number of emergency room, or ER, visits
  • The number of patients with at least one hospital stay or ER visit
  • Physical or mental health
  • The number of times patients went to their doctor after going home
  • How patients rated the quality of the support they received from the hospital

Who was in the study?

The study included 127 patients living in four rural counties in Montana. Of these, 87 percent were white, and 10 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native. The average age was 61, and 57 percent were men.

What did the research team do?

The research team created the new program to help patients who live in rural areas when they go home from the hospital. Hospital staff helped patients in the program figure out what they would need at home while they were recovering, such as help with cleaning or buying groceries. Then staff helped patients find resources near home to meet these needs. Staff also helped patients schedule follow-up doctor visits and manage their care across different doctors.

For patients receiving usual support, staff helped arrange transportation home and gave basic guidance for self-care and taking medicine once they were home.

During the first three months after leaving the hospital, the research team gave patients eight surveys about the support they received. The team also looked at patients’ health records.  

Patients, doctors, and hospital staff helped design the study.

What were the limits of the study?

The study only included patients ages 18 to 75. Results may differ for patients older than 75. The study took place in one state and most patients in the study were white. Results may differ for people in other states or from other racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Future research could look at other ways to help patients in rural areas when they go home from the hospital.

How can people use the results?

Hospitals can use these results when thinking about ways to support patients in rural areas when they leave the hospital.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

More About This Research

PCORI Stories

In Care Transitions, a Chance to Make or Break Patients' Recovery
Read a feature story about what happens when patients are harmed by poorly executed transitions between healthcare settings.

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. The comments and responses included the following:

  • Reviewers said they would have appreciated additionale context about rural discharge processes and outcomes that could be collected with qualitative methods. The researchers noted that they collected 50 case studies using qualitative methods but did not include them in the report because this would add considerably to the report’s length.
  • Reviewers commented on the smaller than expected enrollment as a weakness that was not well addressed in the report.  They stated that it would have been helpful to understand the reasons why individuals declined participation. The researchers expressed disappointment in the low enrollment levels as well but noted the high retention rates. They added that the project’s human subjects protection committee deemed it inappropriate to press patients for an explanation when they chose not to participate.
  • Reviewers commented that the measures used for the study outcomes lacked the sensitivity to detect change. The reviewers agreed and commented on this in their study limitations section.
  • Reviewers asked for an explanation for why the researchers excluded patients older than 75 from the study, finding this exclusion especially problematic since older patients are an important segment of the hospital population. The researchers said that members of the research group and their advisors debated extensively about this decision. They chose to exclude older patients to limit the number of subjects with cognitive impairments, but in retrospect, the researchers said they believe they should have set a higher age cutoff.
  • In a few cases, reviewers asked for details about analyses and outcomes that the researchers could not provide because not all notes remained available after office moves and closures.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

View the COI disclosure form.

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. The comments and responses included the following:

  • Reviewers said they would have appreciated additionale context about rural discharge processes and outcomes that could be collected with qualitative methods. The researchers noted that they collected 50 case studies using qualitative methods but did not include them in the report because this would add considerably to the report’s length.
  • Reviewers commented on the smaller than expected enrollment as a weakness that was not well addressed in the report.  They stated that it would have been helpful to understand the reasons why individuals declined participation. The researchers expressed disappointment in the low enrollment levels as well but noted the high retention rates. They added that the project’s human subjects protection committee deemed it inappropriate to press patients for an explanation when they chose not to participate.
  • Reviewers commented that the measures used for the study outcomes lacked the sensitivity to detect change. The reviewers agreed and commented on this in their study limitations section.
  • Reviewers asked for an explanation for why the researchers excluded patients older than 75 from the study, finding this exclusion especially problematic since older patients are an important segment of the hospital population. The researchers said that members of the research group and their advisors debated extensively about this decision. They chose to exclude older patients to limit the number of subjects with cognitive impairments, but in retrospect, the researchers said they believe they should have set a higher age cutoff.
  • In a few cases, reviewers asked for details about analyses and outcomes that the researchers could not provide because not all notes remained available after office moves and closures.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Tom Seekins, PhD
University of Montana
$1,887,154
10.25302/04.2020.AD.12114788

Key Dates

59 months
May 2013
September 2018
2013
2019

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Project Status
Award Type
Health Conditions

Health Conditions

These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them.

View Glossary
Populations

Populations

PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders.

View Glossary
Funding Opportunity Type
Intervention Strategy

Intervention Strategies

PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care.

View Glossary
Research Priority Area
State

State

The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located.

View Glossary
Last updated: October 20, 2021