Social Determinants of Health and Patient Experiences During Transitions From Inpatient Rehabilitation to Home

Abstract

Transitions from inpatient rehabilitation to home critically affect patient recovery and caregiver well-being. Social determinants of health (SDoH) shape these outcomes yet remain underexamined in rehabilitation settings. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of SDoH on patient and caregiver experiences during the first 30 days following discharge from a multi-site inpatient rehabilitation facility in the southeastern United States and explore patterns of patient satisfaction and caregiver burden that can influence care transitions. A prospective cross-sectional descriptive study surveyed 61 patients and 50 caregivers using validated instruments assessing SDoH, communication, discharge preparedness, and caregiver burden. Social isolation, affecting 18% of patients and 10% of caregivers, was the most prevalent challenge. Additional challenges include health literacy and transportation barriers. Caregivers experienced substantial burden: 60% decline in social activities, 50% decreased energy, and 40.9% negative physical health effects. However, 58.1% reported strengthened patient relationships. This study identifies the importance of care continuity and SDoHs after inpatient rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary interventions focused on these key challenges are essential for improving outcomes.

Keywords

social determinants of health transitional care inpatient rehabilitation care transitions patient experiences caregiver burden

Introduction

Transitional care involves coordinated actions ensuring continuity and communication as patients move between care settings and providers.^1-4 Appropriate transitional care relies on continuous communication between patients, their caregivers, and interdisciplinary care teams who share the responsibility for managing an individual’s care.¹ Often, patients and their caregivers play active roles in planning, coordinating, and managing care-related information.⁵ However, their ability to perform these tasks may be significantly influenced by social determinants of health (SDoH).⁶

SDoH encompass the societal and environmental conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age, including their access to healthcare.⁷ These determinants profoundly influence health outcomes and are increasingly recognized as critical factors during care transitions. The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) framework emphasizes the influence of SDoH on patients undergoing integrated care within diverse healthcare settings.⁸ For instance, a patient may receive exemplary care yet experience poor health outcomes due to challenges like inadequate housing, food insecurity, or limited social support.⁹ Prior research has increasingly linked SDoH to health outcomes during care transitions. Adverse events such as higher mortality rates,¹⁰ hospital readmissions,¹¹ and emergency department visits¹² have all been linked to SDoH. These risks intensify when patients leave structured inpatient support for home-based care. However, the majority of prior research has focused on acute general hospital settings.

Rehabilitation settings provide a unique perspective through which to examine the importance of SDoH. These settings focus on restoring functional abilities and independence. However, successful rehabilitation-to-home transitions depend heavily on addressing SDoH to ensure patients can adhere to therapeutic regimens, access necessary outpatient services, and receive adequate caregiver support.^13,14 Failure to incorporate SDoH into clinical practice can undermine the benefits of medical interventions and rehabilitation efforts.¹⁵ Vulnerable populations, such as underserved patients, encounter additional challenges tied to SDoH. Factors such as lack of transportation, financial constraints, housing instability, geographic isolation, and low health literacy have been shown to affect health outcomes during care transitions.^5,16-18

Transitional care is particularly critical for older adults with multiple conditions and complex therapeutic regimens, as well as for their family caregivers.¹⁹ The quality of transitional care is profoundly influenced by SDoH, shaping both patient and caregiver experiences. Caregivers, the primary source of support for patients during transitions, face compounded challenges when coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. These challenges can hinder their ability to facilitate the patient’s recovery and their own well-being. A previous study by Bakas, Champion, Perkins, Farran and Williams²⁰ using the Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale (BCOS) reveals that caregiving experiences can yield both positive and negative dimensions. While caregivers often experience stronger relationships with the patient and family, enhanced self-esteem, and more optimistic outlook on the future, they may also face reduced time for social and family activities, diminished energy levels, poorer physical health, and financial strain.²⁰

Addressing SDoH is critical to designing transitional care interventions that support patients and their caregivers.¹⁴ These interventions should consider the complex interplay of medical needs, social circumstances, and other factors such as discharge preparation, communication with providers, and available support systems. By understanding the patterns of SDoH and the experiences of patients and caregivers during transitions, rehabilitation organizations and providers may develop patient-centered strategies to enhance care transitions and improve health outcomes. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to 1) explore the patterns of SDoH among inpatient rehabilitation patients and their caregivers during care transitions and 2) examine the patterns of patient and caregiver experiences during transitions, with a focus on how these factors interact and influence outcomes.

Methods

Study Design and Setting

We conducted a prospective study examining SDoH during the 30-day transition from inpatient rehabilitation to home. The study used structured surveys administered either online or via telephone to assess SDoH factors and their relationship to patient and caregiver experiences. The study period encompassed July 2022 through July 2023. The study used the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

The study was conducted at a multi-site inpatient rehabilitation facility in the southeastern United States through its care transitions program. This care transition program focused on supporting patients during their transition from the inpatient rehabilitation hospitals to home. The program provided transition navigation, medication reconciliation, follow-up appointment coordination, and ongoing monitoring to support patients in their home environments.

Participants

The study population consisted of two groups: (1) Adult patients (≥18 years) who had completed an inpatient rehabilitation hospital stay between July 2022 and 2023 at one of the multi-site inpatient rehabilitation facilities and were subsequently enrolled in the care transitions program. Inclusion criteria required English-speaking patients to be at least 30 days post-discharge from inpatient rehabilitation and cognitively able to complete the survey independently or with assistance. Patients with severe cognitive impairments that prevented survey completion were excluded. Cognitive impairment was determined through clinical documentation and information provided by caregivers of patients’ inability to provide informed responses. (2) Primary informal caregivers (family members or friends aged ≥18 years) of the enrolled patients who self-identified as providing regular assistance with activities of daily living, medical care, or other support after discharge.

Recruitment and Sampling

Potential participants were identified upon enrollment into the care transitions program using data retrieved from the electronic medical record. A convenience sampling approach was then used to identify eligible participants who were at least 30 days post-discharge and no more than 90 days post-discharge. This timeframe was selected to allow patients and caregivers sufficient time to establish post-discharge routines and reflect on their transition experiences.

Data Collection Procedures

Eligible participants received an initial phone call inviting them to participate in the study. During this call, participants indicated their preferred method for survey completion. Participants who opted for the online format received a personalized link to the survey via email, which was hosted on the Qualtrics™ platform. The email also included information about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and confidentiality protections, along with a survey link where they could consent and complete the questionnaire. The online survey began with an electronic consent form and took approximately 20-30 minutes to complete.

For those who preferred telephone administration, a specific survey date and time was scheduled. Research staff administered the survey by phone. The phone survey took approximately 30-40 minutes. Verbal consent was obtained at the beginning of the call, and responses were directly entered into the Qualtrics™ platform by the team member. Of the 1,797 patients enrolled in the program during the study period, a total of 61 patients (3.3%) and 50 caregivers were successfully recruited and completed the surveys, and 22 dyads were included in the final sample. Participants received a $10 incentive for their participation in the study.

Data Collection Instruments

The comprehensive survey comprised 11 major sections, with approximately 55 questions for patients and 68 for caregivers (Supplemental material, Table 1). All participants completed demographic information. SDoH were assessed using the Health Leads Social Needs Screening Tool, a validated 9-item instrument that evaluated various SDoH domains. Additional SDoH assessments included questions about social isolation and substance use, measuring frequency of loneliness/isolation on a 5-point scale from “Never” to “Frequently,” and prescription drug misuse and illegal drug use on 5-point scales from “Never” to “Daily or Almost Daily.” All participants were also asked an open-ended question: “Is there anything else that you would like to share about your experiences with the Care Transitions program?”

Patient-specific instruments included the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) follow-up questions, a 6-item assessment that evaluated the quality of discharge planning and transition support. Readmission assessments captured unplanned emergency room visits, doctor’s office visits, and hospital readmissions after discharge, along with reasons for readmission through open-ended responses. The Communication Assessment Tool was administered to assess patients’ perceptions of healthcare provider communication across 15 domains, including greeting, respect, attention, information sharing, understanding, involvement in decisions, and care/concern, with response options ranging from “Poor” to “Excellent” on a 5-point scale.

Caregiver-specific instruments included the BCOS, a validated 15-item scale that measured changes in caregivers’ lives resulting from providing care, using a 7-point rating from “Changed for the worst (-3)” to “Changed for the best (+3)” with a midpoint of “No change (0).” The Caregiver Burden Scale²¹ was also administered, comprising 22 items that assessed caregiver burden across multiple dimensions, including physical and emotional strain, social constraints, relationship changes, feelings of being overwhelmed, and impact on health and quality of life, with response options ranging from “Not at all” to “Often” on a 4-point scale.

Ethical Considerations

All collected data were de-identified and stored on secure, password-protected servers to ensure confidentiality. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed they could withdraw from the study at any time without affecting their care.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic characteristics, SDoH, and patient and caregiver experiences during the transition from inpatient rehabilitation to home. Continuous variables, such as patient age, length of stay (LOS), and household size, were analyzed using means, medians, standard deviations (SD), minimums, and maximums to capture central tendencies and variability within the sample. Frequency distributions and percentages were reported for categorical variables, such as the presence of food insecurity, healthcare access barriers, and caregiver burden.

We examined the distribution of responses across different SDoH domains to identify common patterns and areas of concern among patients and caregivers. For the BCOS data, we organized responses into categories showing positive impact, no change, and negative impact to identify which aspects of caregivers’ lives were most affected by their caregiving responsibilities. The descriptive analytical approach allowed us to characterize the prevalence of SDoH factors in our population and identify potential patterns that could inform future interventions and more complex analytical studies.

Results

Our patient participants reported an average household size of 2.2 (SD=1.30) people with a mean of 0.3 (SD=0.84) children in the household. The average length of stay for these patients in inpatient rehabilitation varied, with a mean of 14.6 days (SD=5.77). The average age of our patient participants was 63.8 years (SD =12.18).

Table 1 shows the key findings of SDoH challenges faced by both patients (N=61) and caregivers (N=50) during the transition from inpatient rehabilitation to home. We found that food insecurity affected 9.8% of patients and 2% of caregivers, while 6.6% of patients faced utility shutoff risks. Although only 3.3% of patients reported housing instability, financial strain remained a concern. This was highlighted by the fact that 4.9% of patients and 4% of caregivers skipped doctor visits due to cost, and 8.2% of patients lacked transportation, potentially increasing readmission risk. Health literacy was a key issue, with 14.8% of patients and 16% of caregivers reporting difficulty understanding medical materials, indicating a need for simplified education strategies and patient navigation support. Social isolation was commonly reported, affecting 18% of patients and 10% of caregivers, suggesting that expanded peer support and mental health interventions may be beneficial. Furthermore, 3.3% of patients identified urgent non-medical needs, including food or shelter, pointing to the importance of early SDoH screening and referrals to social services. Overall, more than a quarter of patients experienced some degree of social isolation. About 3% reported feeling isolated “fairly often”, 25% said feeling lonely “sometimes” and 49% reported never feeling isolated. Substance use was minimal, with only 3% of patients reporting illegal drug use “once or twice” in the past year and no reported prescription drug misuse.

Table 1.

Social Determinants of Health Challenges Among Patients and Caregivers

Question	Patient N=61			Caregiver N=50
Question	Yes	No	Missing	Yes	No
In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food?	6	54	1	1	49
In the last 12 months, has the electric, gas, oil, or water company threatened to shut off your services in your home?	4	56	1	1	49
Are you worried that in the next 2 months, you may not have stable housing?	2	58	1	1	49
Do problems getting childcare make it difficult for you to work or study?	1	59	1	3	47
In the last 12 months, have you needed to see a doctor, but could not because of cost?	3	57	1	2	48
In the last 12 months, have you ever had to go without health care because you didn’t have a way to get there?	5	55	1	2	48
Do you ever need help reading hospital materials?	9	51	1	8	42
Do you often feel that you lack companionship?	11	49	1	5	45
Are any of your non-medical needs urgent? (For example, I don’t have food tonight; I don’t have a place to sleep tonight)	2	58	1	0	50

The data in Table 2 indicate strong discharge planning efforts across the multi-site inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Overall, 90.2% of patients reported that hospital staff discussed their post-discharge support needs. Additionally, 82% received written information about symptoms or health concerns to monitor, although 16.4% did not. A patient-centered approach is evident, with 90% of patients agreeing or strongly agreeing that their preferences and those of their caregivers were incorporated into discharge decisions. Similarly, 95% reported a clear understanding of their responsibilities in managing their health, and 95% understood the purpose of their medications. However, nearly one quarter of patients transitioned to destinations other than their own home following discharge, including another person’s home (18%) or another healthcare facility (4.9%).

Table 2.

Discharge Planning and Communication Assessment Among Patients (N=61)

Question	Patient N=61
Question	Yes		No		Missing
During your hospital stay, did doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital?	55		5		1
During your hospital stay, did you get information in writing about what symptoms or health problems to look out for after you left the hospital?	50		10		1
Question	Own home		Someone else’s home	Another health facility	Missing
After you were discharged from your hospital stay, did you go directly to your own home, to someone else’s home, or to any another health facility?	46		11	3	1
Question	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	Missing
Hospital staff took my preferences and those of my family or caregiver into account in deciding what my health care needs would be when I left the hospital.	1	4	15	40	1
When I left the Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospital, I had a good understanding of the things I was responsible for in managing my health.	1	1	19	39	1
When I left the Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospital, I clearly understood the purpose of taking each of my medications.	0	2	12	46	1

The data in Table 3 highlights overall patient satisfaction with the care received at the rehabilitation facility. Across all surveyed categories, over 85% of responses were positive, with most patients rating their experiences as “very good” or “excellent.” Staff interpersonal skills were strong, with 88.33% of patients feeling they were greeted in a way that made them comfortable and 85% stating they were treated with respect. Effective communication was a key strength. Over 85% of patients stated staff listened attentively, provided clear explanations, and ensured they understood their care plans. However, there is room for improvement in patient engagement, particularly in encouraging patients to ask questions (7% rated this as “fair” or “poor”) and involving them in decision-making (11% rated this as “fair” or “poor”).

Table 3.

Patient Satisfaction With Healthcare Provider Communication (N=61)

Question	Patient N=61
Question	Poor	Fair	Good	Very good	Excellent	Missing
Greeted me in a way that made me feel comfortable	0	3	4	7	46	1
Treated me with respect	0	2	7	8	43	1
Showed interest in my ideas about my health	0	3	7	9	39	3
Understood my main health concerns	1	2	6	10	41	1
Paid attention to me (looked at me, listened)	1	3	6	8	42	1
Let me talk without interruptions	1	3	6	10	40	1
Gave me as much information as I wanted	1	3	6	7	43	1
Talked in terms I could understand	2	1	5	8	44	1
Checked to be sure I understood everything	2	3	8	8	39	1
Encouraged me to ask questions	4	3	3	9	41	1
Involved me in decisions as much as I wanted	2	5	3	13	37	1
Discussed next steps	2	3	4	10	41	1
Showed care and concern	2	1	4	8	45	1
Spent the right amount of time with me	2	2	7	9	40	1
Staff treated me with respect	0	1	4	9	46	1

The data reveal the significant personal and emotional burden associated with caregiving, with negative impacts on social activities, family time, energy levels, physical health, and financial well-being, as shown in Table 4. Over 60% of caregivers reported decreased time (BCOS score of -3, -2, and -1) for social activities, and 51.1% experienced reduced time for family activities, reflecting social isolation and the increasing demands of caregiving. Additionally, half of caregivers reported a decline in energy levels, and 40.9% experienced a negative impact on their physical health, pointing to the physically taxing nature of caregiving responsibilities. Financial strain was another concern, with 37.2% reporting a negative impact, reinforcing the economic burden caregivers often face.

Table 4.

Caregiver Outcomes and Life Changes Following Caregiving Experience (N=50)

How has your caregiving experience changed since becoming a caregiver for the person you care for (the patient)?	Caregiver N=50
	-3 (worst)	-2	-1	0	1	2	3 (best)	Missing
My self-esteem	1	3	2	24	6	3	5	6
My physical health	4	5	9	19	3	1	3	6
My time for family activities	8	6	10	15	3	1	4	3
My ability to cope with stress	4	3	8	25	4	1	1	4
My relationships with friends	3	6	5	24	3	1	3	5
My future outlook	4	3	6	19	4	1	9	4
My level of energy	6	7	10	13	3	4	3	4
My emotional well-being	2	5	10	21	4	2	2	4
My roles in life	3	5	2	22	4	3	3	8
My time for social activities with friends	12	8	9	15	2	0	2	2
My relationship with my family	2	1	2	21	8	4	8	4
My financial well-being	2	7	7	24	2	1	0	7
My relationship with the person I care for (the patient).	1	1	1	15	7	4	14	7
My physical functioning	2	4	4	25	4	1	4	6
My general health	1	4	8	23	3	3	3	5

Despite these challenges, many caregivers also identified positive outcomes. A majority (58.1%) of caregivers reported strengthened relationships with the patient, and 43.5% experienced improved relationships with their family, suggesting that caregiving fosters deeper personal connections. Additionally, 31.8% of caregivers noted an increase in self-esteem, and 30.4% reported a more positive outlook on the future, indicating that caregiving may also foster a sense of purpose and fulfillment.

In contrast, some aspects of caregivers’ lives remained relatively stable. Roles in life, physical functioning, and general health showed minimal change. However, stress management and emotional well-being remain areas of concern. Whereby, 32.6% reported difficulty managing stress and 37% experienced emotional strain. While some caregivers found resilience, only 13% reported improved stress coping abilities, underscoring the need for accessible mental health resources and caregiver support programs.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine SDoH, along with patient and caregiver experience, which influence the transition from inpatient rehabilitation to home. This study identified important converging pressures on patients and caregivers during the first 30-days post inpatient rehabilitation stay. Post-discharge recovery is a shared cognitive, social, and economic task carried by the dyad (patient-caregiver), and gaps in any one domain compromise the others. Health literacy and social isolation, which are known to influence post-acute outcomes, were the most prevalent SDoH among patients. Caregivers similarly experienced strain, including reduced social engagement, decreased energy, and physical and financial challenges. Discharge planning and communication were rated highly across nearly all domains, yet it did not solve the social and behavioral conditions experienced by both patients and caregivers in at-home recovery. These results reflected the multifaceted nature of transitional care and emphasized the need to address both clinical and non-clinical factors to support successful transition to home. Overall, this study highlights the need to address SDoH and caregiver capacity within the same care plan to ensure a comprehensive approach to transition care. This approach would allow for better alignment with functional and recovery goals.

This study extends the SDoH literature in three main ways. First, it examines SDoH at the rehabilitation-to-home transition rather than the acute hospital discharge, where care outcomes differ. In rehabilitation hospitals, post-discharge functional recovery and self-management demands differ from those in acute care hospitals.^22,23 Second, the dyad approach to this study by pairing patients and their caregivers during the same recovery window allows for the two points of view to be explored with intentionality. Third, this study links SDoH measures to valid communication and caregiver burden survey instruments, allowing us to treat clinical and social factors as connected rather than two separate but parallel constructs.

This study found that the transitions from inpatient rehabilitation to home are particularly critical for patients, especially those living in small or single-person households. Caregivers in those same households face strain as they might be absorbing the social and energy costs. A recent 2024 study found that across the United States, social isolation or loneliness (31.9%) and lack of social and emotional support (24.8%) were the most commonly reported SDoH measures.²⁴ Consistent with prior research, the findings from this study showed these adults experienced more social isolation, with over a quarter of patients and caregivers reporting feelings of loneliness.²⁵ This isolation is not only emotional, but also clinically significant, as loneliness has been linked to poorer health outcomes, delayed recovery, increased risk of depression, and higher risk of hospital readmission.²⁶ Furthermore, caregivers reported substantial declines in social engagement, energy levels, and physical well-being, reinforcing the need for supportive services for caregivers, who are significant partners in recovery.²⁷ These strains emphasize the need for structured caregiver supports, including interdisciplinary care coordination and a caregiver education program that can mitigate burden and improve sustainability of care.²⁸ Interestingly, many caregivers also reported positive emotional outcomes, including strengthened relationships and personal growth through improved self-esteem or a more positive outlook. These findings align with existing literature suggesting that while caregiving is undoubtedly demanding, it can also foster deeper interpersonal connections and a sense of purpose when adequate support systems are in place.^29,30 Strategically, integrating supports and in-person/online digital tools and resources, such as virtual peer groups and caregiver communication platforms, has shown effectiveness in reducing isolation and supporting patients and their caregivers.^31,32

Patients with limited or inadequate health literacy require more intensive transitional care support. Addressing this need is a shared responsibility across all health professions.³³ Low health literacy is related to a serious threat to medication adherence, chronic disease management, and follow-up care.³⁴ In this study, strong discharge communication scores and patients’ high levels of reported understanding regarding their medications reflect that the rehabilitation facility is already implementing effective strategies. However, self-reported comprehension does not always translate into consistent patient behaviors, such as correct medication-taking, indicating that important gaps remain. Patient-centered discharge education that incorporates multiple teaching methods has been shown to reduce readmissions and increase patient confidence.³⁵ Reinforcing verbal explanations with clear, jargon-free written materials, using teach-back techniques, and conducting follow-up calls may be essential for ensuring patients understand and apply care recommendations once they return home.^36-38

This study highlights the multifaceted needs of rehabilitation patients and their caregivers during the transition home. Transitions from inpatient rehabilitation to home are demanding because patients are expected to assume greater responsibility for self-management while still recovering from significant functional impairments. It also must account for socioeconomic vulnerabilities, emotional and social well-being, and the capacity of both patients and caregivers to manage complex care regimens. While recent federal and state budget proposals have included reductions to social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and community-based support services,³⁹ these shifts may limit access to essential resources that support transitions from inpatient rehabilitation to home. In this context, interventions that address health literacy, improve access to follow-up care, address mental health and social support needs, and recognize caregiver strain become even more critical for transitional care. The frequencies observed in the study, especially around health literacy, social isolation, and caregiver strain, reflect the distinctive demands of rehabilitation discharge and the need for transition strategies tailored to the rehabilitation patients and their households. A patient-centered, SDoH-informed discharge approach may have the potential to improve recovery trajectories and promote long-term well-being of both patients and their caregivers.

Limitations

Our study had several strengths, such as an in-depth understanding of the SDoH among both patients and their caregivers. There is inconsistent reporting of the SDoH related to rehabilitation services provided after discharge within the scientific literature, indicating the importance of documenting and reporting the role of SDoH. This study has several limitations that affect the interpretation and generalizability of findings. The descriptive cross-sectional design prevents us from drawing causal inferences between SDoH and outcomes. Furthermore, a recruitment form limited to a geographic area reduces generalizability. Convenience sampling may have introduced selection bias, as participants who agreed to participate may differ systematically from those who declined. The sample sizes of 61 patients and 50 caregivers, while adequate for descriptive analysis, limit the statistical power to detect associations between variables or to conduct subgroup analyses. The 30-day post-discharge timeframe captures immediate transition experiences but may not reflect longer-term outcomes or recovery trajectories. Furthermore, the 30-day timeframe may have introduced recall bias.

Conclusion

Successful transitions require recognizing SDoH interventions as essential transitional care components. In addition, there is a strong need for measurable benchmarking to successfully address the SDoHs of both patients and caregivers. As the healthcare system evolves its payment structure, new healthcare reimbursement models may need to incorporate and support comprehensive discharge planning that addresses social risks. Specifically, in inpatient rehabilitation facilities, SDoH screening needs to be integrated into standard discharge protocols targeting patients who may experience high social risk factors. Healthcare systems should also establish dedicated caregiver support programs, which will require allocating resources for respite care services, caregiver education programs, and mental health support specifically designed for the rehabilitation-to-home transition period.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Social Determinants of Health and Patient Experiences During Transitions From Inpatient Rehabilitation to Home

Supplemental Material for Social Determinants of Health and Patient Experiences During Transitions From Inpatient Rehabilitation to Home by Hanadi Hamadi, Chloe E. Bailey, Mindi R. Manes, Trevor Paris, Heather A. Kendall, Sinyoung Park, Jing Xu, Kristen Hicks-Roof, Aaron Spaulding in Journal of Patient Experience

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the patients and caregivers who participated in this study.

ORCID iDs

Hanadi Y. Hamadi

Chloe E. Bailey

Mindi R. Manes

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of North Florida Institutional Review Board (April 5, 2022/IRB#1879810-4)

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from participants in this study information for the publication of this study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Brooks Rehabilitation Collaboration Grant (no grant number), and the University of North Florida Brooks Professorship Grant (KEY003607)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request for privacy reasons.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Allen

Hutchinson

Brown

Livingston

. Quality care outcomes following transitional care interventions for older people from hospital to home: a systematic review. BMC health services research. 2014;14(1):1-18.

Altfeld

Shier

Rooney

, et al. Effects of an enhanced discharge planning intervention for hospitalized older adults: a randomized trial. The Gerontologist. 2013;53(3):430-440.

Georgiadis

Corrigan

. The experience of transitional care for non-medically complex older adults and their family caregivers. Global qualitative nursing research. 2017;4:2333393617696687.

Plant

Mallitt

K-A

Kelly

, et al. Implementation and effectiveness of'care navigation', coordinated management for people with complex chronic illness: rationale and methods of a randomised controlled trial. BMC health services research. 2013;13(1):1-6.

Toscan

Mairs

Hinton

Stolee

Team

. Integrated transitional care: patient, informal caregiver and health care provider perspectives on care transitions for older persons with hip fracture. International journal of integrated care. 2012;12:e13.

Young

Bell

Whitney

Ridberg

Reed

Vitaliano

. Social determinants of health: Underreported heterogeneity in systematic reviews of caregiver interventions. The Gerontologist. 2020;60(Supplement_1):S14-S28.

World Health Organization . Social Determinants of Health; 2021. https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1.

White-Williams

Rossi

Bittner

, et al. Addressing social determinants of health in the care of patients with heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141(22):e841-e863.

Raber

Jackson

Basen-Engquist

, et al. Food Insecurity Among People With Cancer: Nutritional Needs as an Essential Component of Care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114(12):1577-1583. doi:10.1093/jnci/djac135.

10.

Sterling

Ringel

Pinheiro

, et al. Social Determinants of Health and 90‐Day Mortality After Hospitalization for Heart Failure in the REGARDS Study. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;9(9):e014836.

11.

Meddings

Reichert

Smith

, et al. The impact of disability and social determinants of health on condition-specific readmissions beyond Medicare risk adjustments: a cohort study. Journal of general internal medicine. 2017;32(1):71-80.

12.

Baptiste

D-L

Turkson-Ocran

R-A

Han

H-R

Himmelfarb

Commodore-Mensah

. Social determinants of emergency department visits among persons diagnosed with coronary heart disease and stroke. Ethnicity & Disease. 2021;31(1):41-46.

13.

Chelak

Chakole

. The role of social determinants of health in promoting health equality: a narrative review. Cureus. 2023;15(1):e33425.

14.

Fresenko

Rutherfurd

Robinson

, et al. Rehabilitation and Social Determinants of Health in Critical Illness Recovery Literature: A Systematic Review. Critical Care Explorations. 2024;6(12):e1184.

15.

Andermann

CLEAR Collaboration . Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. Cmaj. 2016;188(17-18):E474-e483. doi:10.1503/cmaj.160177.

16.

Markle-Reid

Valaitis

Bartholomew

, et al. An integrated hospital-to-home transitional care intervention for older adults with stroke and multimorbidity: A feasibility study. Journal of comorbidity. 2020;10:2235042X19900451.

17.

Markle-Reid

Valaitis

Bartholomew

, et al. Feasibility and preliminary effects of an integrated hospital-to-home transitional care intervention for older adults with stroke and multimorbidity: a study protocol. Journal of comorbidity. 2019;9:2235042X19828241.

18.

Virapongse

Misky

. Self-Identified Social Determinants of Health during Transitions of Care in the Medically Underserved: a Narrative Review. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(11):1959-1967. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4615-3.

19.

Naylor

Keating

. Transitional care. Am J Nurs. 2008;108(9 Suppl):58-63. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000336420.34946.3a. quiz 63.

20.

Bakas

Champion

Perkins

Farran

Williams

. Psychometric testing of the revised 15-item Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale. Nursing research. 2006;55(5):346-355.

21.

Elmståhl

Malmberg

Annerstedt

. Caregiver's burden of patients 3 years after stroke assessed by a novel caregiver burden scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1996;77(2):177-182. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90164-1.

22.

Flink

Ekstedt

. Planning for the discharge, not for patient self-management at home–an observational and interview study of hospital discharge. International journal of integrated care. 2017;17(6):1.

23.

Chang

K-V

Chen

K-H

Chen

Y-H

, et al. A multicenter study to compare the effectiveness of the inpatient post acute care program versus traditional rehabilitation for stroke survivors. Scientific reports. 2022;12(1):12811.

24.

Town

Eke

Zhao

, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in social determinants of health and health-related social needs among adults—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2022. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2024;73:204-208.

25.

Shimada

Yamazaki

Nakano

Ngoma

Takahashi

Yasumura

. Prevalence of social isolation in community-dwelling elderly by differences in household composition and related factors: from a social network perspective in urban Japan. Journal of aging and health. 2014;26(5):807-823.

26.

Nagarajan

Lee

D-CA

Robins

Haines

. Risk factors for social isolation in post-hospitalized older adults. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2020;88:104036.

27.

Petry

Lara

Boucher

. Older caregivers: who they are and how to support them. Journal of Aging & Social Policy. 2024;36(4):589-602.

28.

Hicks-Roof

Bailey

Hamadi

. Older and wiser? The need to reexamine the impact of health professionals age and experience on competency-based practices. SAGE Open Nursing. 2021;7:23779608211029067.

29.

Lightfoot

Moone

Suleiman

, et al. Concerns of family caregivers during COVID-19: The concerns of caregivers and the surprising silver linings. COVID-19 and Older Adults. Routledge; 2023:88-107.

30.

Phillips

Durkin

Engward

Cable

Iancu

. The impact of caring for family members with mental illnesses on the caregiver: a scoping review. Health promotion international. 2023;38(3):daac049.

31.

Wei

Piguet

Kumfor

. A psychosocial intervention for carers of individuals diagnosed with dementia in social isolation. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra. 2023;13(1):48-56.

32.

Newman

Wang

AZY

Hanna

. The role of internet-based digital tools in reducing social isolation and addressing support needs among informal caregivers: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1495. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7837-3.

33.

Boyle

Speroff

Worley

, et al. Low health literacy is associated with increased transitional care needs in hospitalized patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2017;12(11):918-924.

34.

Shahid

Shoker

Chu

Frehlick

Ward

Pahwa

. Impact of low health literacy on patients’ health outcomes: a multicenter cohort study. BMC health services research. 2022;22(1):1148.

35.

Kayser

Phanareth

. Leave no one behind: the role of digital health literacy. Digital Respiratory Healthcare (ERS Monograph) Sheffield, European Respiratory Society. 2023:79-94.

36.

Marks

O'Sullivan

Pytel

Parkosewich

. Using a teach-back intervention significantly improves knowledge, perceptions, and satisfaction of patients with Nurses' discharge medication education. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2022;19(6):458-466. doi:10.1111/wvn.12612.

37.

Gotlieb

Praska

Hendrickson

, et al. Accuracy in Patient Understanding of Common Medical Phrases. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(11):e2242972. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42972.

38.

Dudas

Bookwalter

Kerr

Pantilat

. The impact of follow-up telephone calls to patients after hospitalization. Disease-a-Month. 2002/04/01/. 2002;48(4):239-248. doi:10.1016/S0011-5029(02)90031-3.

39.

Basu

Patel

Berkowitz

. Projected Health System and Economic Impacts of 2025 Medicaid Policy Proposals. JAMA Health Forum. 2025;6(7):e253187. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3187.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.08 MB