Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background/objectives Hospice care confers well-documented benefits to patients and their families, but it is underutilized. One potential reason is inadequate family support to make end-of-life decisions and care for older adults on hospice at home. We assessed the association between amount of family support and hospice use among a population of decedents and among specific illness types. Design Prospective cohort study using the National Health and Aging Trends Study waves 2011 to 2017, linked to Medicare claims data. Setting Contiguous United States. Participants A total of 1,868 NHATS decedents. Measurements Outcome variable was 1 day or longer of hospice. Family caregiving intensity was measured by self-reported hours of care per week and number of caregivers. Covariates included probable dementia status and other demographic, clinical, and functional characteristics. Results At the end of life, hours of family caregiving and numbers of helpers vary widely with individuals with dementia receiving the most hours of unpaid care (mean = 64.5 hours per week) and having 2.4 unpaid caregivers on average. In an adjusted analysis, older adults with cancer receiving 40 hours and more of unpaid care/week as compared with fewer than 6 hours per week were twice as likely to receive hospice care at the end of life (odds ratio = 2.0; 95% confidence interval = 1.0-4.1). This association was not seen among those with dementia or among decedents in general. No significant association was found between number of caregivers and hospice use at the end of life. Conclusion Older adults at the end of life receive a high number of hours of help at the end of life, many from more than one caregiver, which may shape hospice access. Better understanding of disparities in hospice use can facilitate timely access to care for older adults with a serious illness. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2288-2296, 2020.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 64/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 37 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 64 of 100. Total 64 of 100.37 of the 58 points we could judge = 64 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,868 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 32602571)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 37 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100.
Total 64 / 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

Kumar, V., Ankuda, C. K., Aldridge, M. D., Husain, M., & Ornstein, K. A. (2020). Family Caregiving at the End of Life and Hospice Use: A National Study of Medicare Beneficiaries. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16648

Vancouver

Kumar V, Ankuda CK, Aldridge MD, Husain M, Ornstein KA. Family Caregiving at the End of Life and Hospice Use: A National Study of Medicare Beneficiaries. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2020. doi:10.1111/jgs.16648. PMID: 32602571.

BibTeX

@article{kumar2020-32602571,
  author  = {Kumar, V. and Ankuda, C. K. and Aldridge, M. D. and Husain, M. and Ornstein, K. A.},
  title   = {{Family Caregiving at the End of Life and Hospice Use: A National Study of Medicare Beneficiaries}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.16648},
  pmid    = {32602571},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16648}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Also tagged “delirium”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →