Risk Factors Associated with Preventable Hospitalisation among Rural Community-Dwelling Patients: A Systematic Review

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;19(24):16487. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192416487.

Abstract

Potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPHs) are common and increase the burden on already stretched healthcare services. Increasingly, psychosocial factors have been recognised as contributing to PPHs and these may be mitigated through greater attention to social capital. This systematic review investigates the factors associated with PPHs within rural populations. The review was designed, conducted, and reported according to PRISMA guidelines and registered with Prospero (ID: CRD42020152194). Four databases were systematically searched, and all potentially relevant papers were screened at the title/abstract level, followed by full-text review by at least two reviewers. Papers published between 2000-2022 were included. Quality assessment was conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and CASP Qualitative checklist. Of the thirteen papers included, eight were quantitative/descriptive and five were qualitative studies. All were from either Australia or the USA. Access to primary healthcare was frequently identified as a determinant of PPH. Socioeconomic, psychosocial, and geographical factors were commonly identified in the qualitative studies. This systematic review highlights the inherent attributes of rural populations that predispose them to PPHs. Equal importance should be given to supply/system factors that restrict access and patient-level factors that influence the ability and capacity of rural communities to receive appropriate primary healthcare.

Keywords: access; determinants; preventable hospitalisation; primary care; risk factors; rural; socioeconomic.

Publication types

  • Systematic Review
  • Review
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Australia
  • Hospitalization
  • Humans
  • Independent Living*
  • Risk Factors
  • Rural Population*

Grants and funding

The article processing charge was funded by the University of Tasmania’s Pharmacy Appeal Fund.