4.5 Article

Hospice Use Among Urban Black and White US Nursing Home Decedents in 2006

期刊

GERONTOLOGIST
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 251-260

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnq093

关键词

End-of-life care; Race; Disparities

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [T32 HS000011, 5T32HS000011-24, R03HS016918, R03 HS016918] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [1P01AG027296, P01 AG027296] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Medicare hospice is a valuable source of quality care at the end of life, but its lower use by racial minority groups is of concern. This study identifies factors associated with hospice use among urban Black and White nursing home (NH) decedents in the United States. Design and Methods: Multiple data sources are combined and multilevel logistic regression is utilized to examine hospice use among urban Black and White NH residents who had access to hospice and died in 2006 (N = 288,202). Results: In NHs, Blacks are less likely to use hospice than Whites (35.4% vs. 39.3%), even when controlling for covariates, interactions, and clustering of decedents in NHs and counties (adjusted odds ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.77-0.86). Variation in hospice use is greater among subgroups of Blacks than between Blacks and Whites, and these variations are predominantly due to individual-level factors, with some influence of NH-level factors. Hospice use is higher for Blacks versus Whites with do-not-resuscitate orders and lower for Blacks versus Whites with congestive heart failure (CHF). Additionally, hospice use is greater among Blacks with versus without do-not-resuscitate or do-not-hospitalize orders or cancer and those in low-tier versus other NHs. There was also lower hospice use among Blacks with versus without CHF. Implications: Efforts to reduce racial differences in hospice use should attend to individual-level factors. Heightening use of advance directives and targeting Blacks with CHF for hospice could be particularly helpful.

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

4.5
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