4.6 Article

Two-Year Mortality in Homebound Older Adults: An Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 123-129

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14467

关键词

homebound; United States; epidemiology; cross-sectional studies; mortality

资金

  1. Voluntary Landmark Health
  2. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [U01AG32947]
  3. NIA [K01AG047923]
  4. National Palliative Care Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo determine the association between homebound status and mortality. DesignCross-sectional. SettingAnnual, in-person interviews. ParticipantsA nationally representative sample of community-dwelling, Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older enrolled in the National Health and Aging Trends Study between 2011 and 2013 (N = 6,400). MeasurementsTwo-year mortality and prevalence of homebound status in the year before death are described using three categories of homebound status: homebound (never or rarely left home in the last month), semihomebound (left home with assistance, needed help or had difficulty), and nonhomebound (left home without help or difficulty). ResultsIn unadjusted analyses, 2-year mortality was 40.3% in homebound participants, 21.3% in those who were semihomebound and 5.8% in those who were nonhomebound. Homebound status was associated with greater 2-year mortality, adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and functional status (hazard ratio = 2.08; 95% confidence interval = 1.63-2.65, P < .001). Half of older community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries were homebound in the year before death. ConclusionHomebound status is associated with greater risk of death independent of functional impairment and comorbidities. To improve outcomes for homebound older adults and the many older adults who will become homebound in the last year of life, providers and policymakers need to extend healthcare services from hospitals and clinics to the homes of vulnerable individuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据