[Purpose] This study aimed to clarify differences between home-visit rehabilitation users and providers in their understanding of the content and subjective effects of this practice. [Subjects] The subjects of this study were home-visit rehabilitation users and providers. [Methods] Home-visit rehabilitation users and providers were given self-administered questionnaires regarding home-visit rehabilitation, such as the content and subjective effects. The McNemar’s test was used for statistical analysis. [Results] Responses of 34 pairs meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Mean user age was 75.2 ± 9.2 years, and 58.8% (20/34) of respondents were female. In terms of home-visit rehabilitation content, users believed that the following 3 items had been “implemented” to a greater extent than that estimated by providers: paralysis improvement exercise, floor sitting and standing, and self-care activities. No significant differences in awareness were identified between users and providers regarding the maintenance/improvement effects of home-visit rehabilitation. [Conclusion] Users tend to consider that programs aimed at relieving symptoms and pain and improving mobility are being implemented to a greater extent than that considered by providers. Providers need to explain the aims of home-visit rehabilitation programs in a way that can be understood by users.