OBJECTIVES: To describe retention according to age and visit type (clinic, home, telephone) and to determine characteristics associated with visit types for a longitudinal epidemiological study in older adults. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Four U.S. clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Five thousand eight hundred eighty-eight Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) participants aged 65 to 100 at 1989/90 or 1992/93 enrollment (58.6% female; 15.7% black). CHS participants were contacted every 6 months, with annual assessments through 1999 and in 2005/06 for the All Stars Study visit of the CHS cohort (aged 77-102; 66.5% female; 16.6% black). MEASUREMENTS: All annual contacts through 1999 (n=43,772) and for the 2005/06 visit (n=1,942). RESULTS: CHS had 43,772 total participant contacts from 1989 to 1999: 34,582 clinic visits (79.0%), 2,238 refusals (5.1%), 4,401 telephone visits (10.1%), 1,811 home visits (4.1%), and 740 other types (1.7%). In 2005/06, the All Stars participants of the CHS cohort had 36.6% clinic, 22.3% home, and 41.1% telephone visits. Compared with participants aged 65 to 69, odds ratios of not attending a CHS clinic visit were 1.82 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.54-2.13), 2.94 (95% CI=2.45-3.57), 4.55 (95% CI=3.70-5.56), and 9.09 (95% CI=7.69-11.11) for those aged 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older, respectively, in sex-adjusted regression. In multivariable regression, participants with a 2005/06 clinic visit were younger, more likely to be male and in good health, and had had better cognitive and physical function 7 years earlier than participants with other visit types. Participants with home, telephone, and missing visits were similar on characteristics measured 7 years earlier. CONCLUSION: Offering home, telephone, and proxy visits are essential to optimizing follow-up of aging cohorts. Home visits increased in-person retention from 36.5% to 58.8% and diversified the cohort with respect to age, health, and physical functioning.
OBJECTIVES: To describe retention according to age and visit type (clinic, home, telephone) and to determine characteristics associated with visit types for a longitudinal epidemiological study in older adults. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Four U.S. clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Five thousand eight hundred eighty-eight Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) participants aged 65 to 100 at 1989/90 or 1992/93 enrollment (58.6% female; 15.7% black). CHSparticipants were contacted every 6 months, with annual assessments through 1999 and in 2005/06 for the All Stars Study visit of the CHS cohort (aged 77-102; 66.5% female; 16.6% black). MEASUREMENTS: All annual contacts through 1999 (n=43,772) and for the 2005/06 visit (n=1,942). RESULTS:CHS had 43,772 total participant contacts from 1989 to 1999: 34,582 clinic visits (79.0%), 2,238 refusals (5.1%), 4,401 telephone visits (10.1%), 1,811 home visits (4.1%), and 740 other types (1.7%). In 2005/06, the All Stars participants of the CHS cohort had 36.6% clinic, 22.3% home, and 41.1% telephone visits. Compared with participants aged 65 to 69, odds ratios of not attending a CHS clinic visit were 1.82 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.54-2.13), 2.94 (95% CI=2.45-3.57), 4.55 (95% CI=3.70-5.56), and 9.09 (95% CI=7.69-11.11) for those aged 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older, respectively, in sex-adjusted regression. In multivariable regression, participants with a 2005/06 clinic visit were younger, more likely to be male and in good health, and had had better cognitive and physical function 7 years earlier than participants with other visit types. Participants with home, telephone, and missing visits were similar on characteristics measured 7 years earlier. CONCLUSION: Offering home, telephone, and proxy visits are essential to optimizing follow-up of aging cohorts. Home visits increased in-person retention from 36.5% to 58.8% and diversified the cohort with respect to age, health, and physical functioning.
Authors: Seok Won Park; Bret H Goodpaster; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Lewis H Kuller; Robert Broudeau; Candace Kammerer; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Tamara B Harris; Ann V Schwartz; Frances A Tylavsky; Yong-wook Cho; Anne B Newman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ann V Schwartz; Deborah E Sellmeyer; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Frances A Tylavsky; Kenneth R Feingold; Helaine E Resnick; Ronald I Shorr; Michael C Nevitt; Dennis M Black; Jane A Cauley; Steven R Cummings; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-12-13 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Robin L Fullman; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Jane A Cauley; Marcia L Stefanick; Howard A Fink; Cora E Lewis; Eric Orwoll Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-01-25 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Jane A Cauley; Li-Yung Lui; Katie L Stone; Teresa A Hillier; Joseph M Zmuda; Marc Hochberg; Thomas J Beck; Kristinee E Ensrud Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: W T Longstreth; Alice M Arnold; Norman J Beauchamp; Teri A Manolio; David Lefkowitz; Charles Jungreis; Calvin H Hirsch; Daniel H O'Leary; Curt D Furberg Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lewis H Kuller; Alice M Arnold; Bruce M Psaty; John A Robbins; Daniel H O'Leary; Russell P Tracy; Gregory L Burke; Teri A Manolio; Paolo H M Chaves Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-01-09
Authors: Bret H Goodpaster; Seok Won Park; Tamara B Harris; Steven B Kritchevsky; Michael Nevitt; Ann V Schwartz; Eleanor M Simonsick; Frances A Tylavsky; Marjolein Visser; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: B M Psaty; L H Kuller; D Bild; G L Burke; S J Kittner; M Mittelmark; T R Price; P M Rautaharju; J Robbins Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Avantika C Waring; Alice M Arnold; Anne B Newman; Petra Bùzková; Calvin Hirsch; Anne R Cappola Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michelle C Odden; William Jen Hoe Koh; Alice M Arnold; Bruce M Psaty; Anne B Newman Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Nancy S Jenny; Benjamin French; Alice M Arnold; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Mary Cushman; Paulo H M Chaves; Jingzhong Ding; Linda P Fried; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Dena E Rifkin; Mark J Sarnak; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Sonja Vestergaard; Karen Andersen-Ranberg; Axel Skytthe; Kaare Christensen; Jean-Marie Robine; Bernard Jeune Journal: Eur J Ageing Date: 2015-09-08
Authors: Naoko Sagawa; Zachary A Marcum; Robert M Boudreau; Joseph T Hanlon; Steven M Albert; Celia O'Hare; Suzanne Satterfield; Ann V Schwartz; Aaron I Vinik; Jane A Cauley; Tamara B Harris; Anne B Newman; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Eur J Ageing Date: 2018-01-19
Authors: Lisa Aronson Friedman; Daniel L Young; Archana Nelliot; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Dale M Needham; Victor D Dinglas Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Caroline M Tanner; Cheryl C Meng; Bernard Ravina; Anthony Lang; Roger Kurlan; Kenneth Marek; David Oakes; John Seibyl; Emily Flagg; Lisa Gauger; Dolores D Guest; Christopher G Goetz; Karl Kieburtz; Diane DiEuliis; Stanley Fahn; Robin A Elliott; Ira Shoulson Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 10.338