1.9. Analysis.

Comparison 1: Admission avoidance hospital at home versus inpatient care, Outcome 9: Patient satisfaction

Patient satisfaction
Study	Outcomes	Results	Notes
Caplan 1999	Satisfaction rated on a 4 point scale: 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor.	Mean score T= 1.1, C= 2.0, P < 0.0001	Response rates were 78% for the treatment group, and 40% for the control.
Corwin 2005	Patient satisfaction questionnaire (not described)	Overall T= 87/91 (96%), C=87/96 (96%), P = 0.12 Satisfaction with location of care T= 85/91 (93%), C= 59/88 (66%), P < 0.0001 Location preference In the hospital T= 5/91 (5%), C= 27/88 (31%) In the community T= 78/91 (86%), C= 31/88 (35%) No preference T= 8/91 (9%), C= 30/88 (34%) P < 0.0001	Numbers for control group vary between 88 and 91 due to missing data Proportion of participants satisfied or very satisfied
Levine 2018	Global satisfaction score;	Median global satisfaction score (IQR) T = 10 (1) C = 10 (2) P=0.67
Levine 2020	Global satisfaction score; range of scores from 0 to 10, high scores equal high satisfaction	Median global satisfaction score (IQR) T = 10 (1) N=42 C = 9 (1) N=38
Ricauda 2008	Patient satisfaction questionnaire (not described)	T= 49/52 (94%), C= 46/52 (88%), P = 0.83	Proportion of participants rating satisfaction as very good/excellent at discharge
Richards 2005	Outcome not described	T= 24/24 (100%), C= 14/24 (60%), P = 0.001	Proportion of patients very happy with care
Shepperd 2021	Patient‐reported experience questionnaire at 1 month, developed by the Picker Institute Europe (Oxford, UK)	Patient satisfaction in favour of CGA HAH
Wilson 1999	Patient satisfaction, scale 0 to 18	Median (IQR) T= 15 (13 to 16.5), C= 12 (11 to 14), P < 0.0001	At 2 weeks, or discharge Reported in ⛔ Wilson 2002