Home › Research › End-of-life care
Factors Associated With Home-Hospice Utilization
Zainab Toteh Osakwe, Bhavleen K Arora, Mandi-Leigh Peterson, Chinedu U Obioha, Rose Saint Fleur-Calixte. Home healthcare now, 2021
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Utilization of hospice for end-of-life care is known to be lower among racial and ethnic minority groups than among White populations when controlling for other socioeconomic factors. Certain patient, provider, and community characteristics may influence home-hospice use. We sought to identify patient, provider, and community factors associated with home-hospice use. Our final analytic sample included 1,208,700 hospice patients who received home-hospice from 2,148 Medicare-certified hospice providers in 2016. We found that an increase in the proportion of hospice patients with a primary diagnosis of dementia decreased the odds that home-hospice was provided (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.36-1.48). Patients who received hospice care from a provider with a higher proportion of dually enrolled patients were less likely to receive home-hospice (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.36-1.48) and hospices located in ZIP-codes with higher proportion of Hispanic resident were less likely to provide home-hospice (OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99-0.99). Additional research is needed to clarify the mechanisms underlying these associations.
Key findings
- We sought to identify patient, provider, and community factors associated with home-hospice use.
- We found that an increase in the proportion of hospice patients with a primary diagnosis of dementia decreased the odds that home-hospice was provided (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.36-1.48).
Study details
- Participants1,208,700
- Effect sizeOR = 1.42; OR = 1.00
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Home healthcare now) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 1,208,700 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33417361) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 33 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Osakwe, Z. T., Arora, B. K., Peterson, M.-L., Obioha, C. U., & Fleur-Calixte, R. S. (2021). Factors Associated With Home-Hospice Utilization. Home healthcare now. https://doi.org/10.1097/nhh.0000000000000937
Vancouver
Osakwe ZT, Arora BK, Peterson M.-L, Obioha CU, Fleur-Calixte RS. Factors Associated With Home-Hospice Utilization. Home healthcare now. 2021. doi:10.1097/nhh.0000000000000937. PMID: 33417361.
BibTeX
@article{osakwe2021-33417361,
author = {Osakwe, Zainab Toteh and Arora, Bhavleen K and Peterson, Mandi-Leigh and Obioha, Chinedu U and Fleur-Calixte, Rose Saint},
title = {{Factors Associated With Home-Hospice Utilization}},
journal = {Home healthcare now},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1097/nhh.0000000000000937},
pmid = {33417361},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/nhh.0000000000000937}
}
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also in End-of-life care
116 studies in the library are filed under End-of-life care with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The End-of-life care hub.