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.

64/100

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

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. Using datasets from the Health and Retirement Study, we conducted a cross-sectional study on 17,698 participants aged 51 years and older. Our analyses included survey descriptive and logistic regression procedures. ACP measures included a living will and durable power of attorney for healthcare. Healthcare utilization was measured using the days spent in hospitals, hospice care, nursing homes, and home care. Of the participants, 77.8% had normal cognition, and 22% had impaired cognition/dementia. The proportion of impaired cognition/dementia was higher among racially minoritized participants, single/widowed participants, and those who lived alone and were less educated. The results showed that having an ACP was associated with longer stays in hospitals, nursing homes, and home healthcare in all participants.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Rahemi, Z., Malatyali, A., Bacsu, J.-D. R., Sefcik, J. S., Petrovsky, D. V., Baker, Z. G., et al. (2023). Healthcare Utilization and Advance Care Planning among Older Adults Across Cognitive Levels. Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648231191667

Vancouver

Rahemi Z, Malatyali A, Bacsu J.-DR, Sefcik JS, Petrovsky DV, Baker ZG, et al. Healthcare Utilization and Advance Care Planning among Older Adults Across Cognitive Levels. Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society. 2023. doi:10.1177/07334648231191667. PMID: 37525608.

BibTeX

@article{rahemi2023-37525608,
  author  = {Rahemi, Zahra and Malatyali, Ayse and Bacsu, Juanita-Dawne R and Sefcik, Justine S and Petrovsky, Darina V and Baker, Zachary G and Ma, Kris Pui Kwan and Smith, Matthew L and others},
  title   = {{Healthcare Utilization and Advance Care Planning among Older Adults Across Cognitive Levels}},
  journal = {Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1177/07334648231191667},
  pmid    = {37525608},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648231191667}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record lists 17,698 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “77.8%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The results showed that having an ACP was associated with longer stays in hospitals, nursing homes, and home healthcare in all participants.

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants17,698
Effect size77.8%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 64/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
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	2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	4 / 4	17,698 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37525608)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	36 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 56 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in End-of-life care from nearby years

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →