Identifying Contextual Factors affecting Hospital In Home Program Implementation within the Veterans Health Administration

Clicks: 23
ID: 326928
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #102 of 195 articles by views in the gerontologist

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 195 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Understanding the factors that enable or hinder successful implementation is essential for improving patient outcomes. Hospital in Home (HiH) programs provide hospital-level care in patients' homes to reduce hospitalization, enhance satisfaction, and improve resource use. Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 14 sites have implemented HiH programs, yet limited research has examined implementation within a large integrated system. This study identifies factors that can support or hinder HiH implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted interviews with 48 key informants across 14 VHA HiH sites. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0, we applied directed content analysis using a priori constructs, then developed site-level matrices to summarize findings and compare patterns across sites. RESULTS: We identified 18 CFIR constructs-nine that primarily facilitated implementation and nine mixed factors that acted as both facilitators and barriers. Key facilitators included two Individual-level factors (HiH lead capability and motivation, team motivation), one Innovation factor (relative advantage of HiH), and four Implementation Process factors (planning, teaming, reflecting and evaluating, adapting). Mixed factors were mostly within the inner setting, reflecting medical center context, along with two Individual-level mixed factors (leader and recipient motivation). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: HiH programs hold strong potential to transform care for older adults, but success depends on addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators, particularly within the inner setting. Understanding key implementation determinants can enhance adoption, improve outcomes, and strengthen healthcare delivery.
Reference Key
openalex_W7205004433 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jennifer L. Sullivan, Marlena H. Shin, Emily Franzosa, A. Alex Levine, Jessica Barth, Reza Yousefi‐Nooraie, Porooshat Dadgostar, Sunjae Park, Dayna Cooper, Shivani K. Jindal, Derek D'Arcy, William W. Hung, Orna Intrator
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal the gerontologist
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/geront/gnag218
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnag218
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.