ABSTRACT Aim To synthesise relevant theories and empirical evidence on telehome‐based palliative care, with a focus on care delivery, caregiver involvement and service coordination in nursing practice. Design Integrative review. Methods Peer‐reviewed studies of telehome‐based palliative care for adults with life‐limiting illnesses were included if they reported evidence relating to healthcare providers, patients, or family caregivers. Methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis informed by Normalisation Process Theory and a dual supply–demand framework. Data Sources Eleven electronic databases were searched from database inception to 3 March 2026: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP, Duxiu and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Results Thirty‐three studies were included. Telehealth‐supported palliative care improved access to specialist support, enabled more proactive symptom management and strengthened continuity of care at home. Implementation, however, depended on the interaction between service design and user capability, with digital literacy, language barriers, caregiver burden and organisational readiness shaping engagement. Conclusion Telehome‐based palliative care is a socio‐technical and relational care model rather than an isolated digital intervention. Its implementation and sustainability rely on effective alignment between service structures and patient–caregiver needs and capacities. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care Nursing leaders and organisations should prioritise workforce digital competence, interdisciplinary coordination, and caregiver‐inclusive telehealth design. Impact This review provides an equity‐focused framework for developing and implementing telehome‐based palliative care. Reporting Method The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and SWiM where applicable. Patient or Public Contribution No patient or public contribution was involved because this was a review of published literature. Review Registration The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO ( CRD420261303371 ).
Xu et al. (Sun,) studied this question.