Katherine A Ornstein1, Bruce Leff2, Kenneth E Covinsky3, Christine S Ritchie3, Alex D Federman4, Laken Roberts5, Amy S Kelley6, Albert L Siu6, Sarah L Szanton7. 1. Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York2Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York3Division of General Internal Medicine, Depa. 2. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland5Department of Community and Public Health, School of Nursing, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland6Department of Health Policy and Manag. 3. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 5. Department of Community and Public Health, School of Nursing, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York8Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York. 7. Department of Community and Public Health, School of Nursing, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland6Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Increasing numbers of older, community-dwelling adults have functional impairments that prevent them from leaving their homes. It is uncertain how many people who live in the United States are homebound. OBJECTIVES: To develop measures of the frequency of leaving and ability to leave the home and to use these measures to estimate the size of the homebound population in the US population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study collected in 2011 in the contiguous United States. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 7603 noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We defined homebound persons as those who never (completely homebound) or rarely (mostly homebound) left the home in the last month. We defined semihomebound persons as those who only left the home with assistance or had difficulty or needed help leaving the home. We compared demographic, clinical, and health care utilization characteristics across different homebound status categories. RESULTS: In 2011, the prevalence of homebound individuals was 5.6% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.2%), including an estimated 395,422 people who were completely homebound and 1,578,984 people who were mostly homebound. Among semihomebound individuals, the prevalence of those who never left home without personal assistance was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.8%), and the prevalence of those who required help or had difficulty was 11.7% (95% CI, 10.9%-12.6%). Completely homebound individuals were more likely to be older (83.2 vs 74.3 years, P < .001), female (67.9% vs 53.4%, P < .006), and of nonwhite race (34.1% vs 17.6%, P < .001) and have less education and income than nonhomebound individuals. They also had more chronic conditions (4.9 vs 2.5) and were more likely to have been hospitalized in the last 12 months (52.1% vs 16.2%) (P < .001 for both). Only 11.9% of completely homebound individuals reported receiving primary care services at home. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In total, 5.6% of the elderly, community-dwelling Medicare population (approximately 2 million people) were completely or mostly homebound in 2011. Our findings can inform improvements in clinical and social services for these individuals.
IMPORTANCE: Increasing numbers of older, community-dwelling adults have functional impairments that prevent them from leaving their homes. It is uncertain how many people who live in the United States are homebound. OBJECTIVES: To develop measures of the frequency of leaving and ability to leave the home and to use these measures to estimate the size of the homebound population in the US population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study collected in 2011 in the contiguous United States. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 7603 noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We defined homebound persons as those who never (completely homebound) or rarely (mostly homebound) left the home in the last month. We defined semihomebound persons as those who only left the home with assistance or had difficulty or needed help leaving the home. We compared demographic, clinical, and health care utilization characteristics across different homebound status categories. RESULTS: In 2011, the prevalence of homebound individuals was 5.6% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.2%), including an estimated 395,422 people who were completely homebound and 1,578,984 people who were mostly homebound. Among semihomebound individuals, the prevalence of those who never left home without personal assistance was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.8%), and the prevalence of those who required help or had difficulty was 11.7% (95% CI, 10.9%-12.6%). Completely homebound individuals were more likely to be older (83.2 vs 74.3 years, P < .001), female (67.9% vs 53.4%, P < .006), and of nonwhite race (34.1% vs 17.6%, P < .001) and have less education and income than nonhomebound individuals. They also had more chronic conditions (4.9 vs 2.5) and were more likely to have been hospitalized in the last 12 months (52.1% vs 16.2%) (P < .001 for both). Only 11.9% of completely homebound individuals reported receiving primary care services at home. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In total, 5.6% of the elderly, community-dwelling Medicare population (approximately 2 million people) were completely or mostly homebound in 2011. Our findings can inform improvements in clinical and social services for these individuals.
Authors: Tammy M Scott; Inga Peter; Katherine L Tucker; Lisa Arsenault; Peter Bergethon; Rafeeque Bhadelia; Jennifer Buell; Lauren Collins; John F Dashe; John Griffith; Patricia Hibberd; Drew Leins; Timothy Liu; Jose M Ordovas; Samuel Patz; Lori Lyn Price; Wei Qiao Qiu; Mark Sarnak; Jacob Selhub; Lauren Smaldone; Carey Wagner; Lixia Wang; Daniel Weiner; Jacqueline Yee; Irwin Rosenberg; Marshal Folstein Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Katherine A Ornstein; Linda DeCherrie; Rima Gluzman; Elizabeth S Scott; Jyoti Kansal; Tushin Shah; Ralph Katz; Theresa A Soriano Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Martha L Bruce; Gail J McAvay; Patrick J Raue; Ellen L Brown; Barnett S Meyers; Denis J Keohane; David R Jagoda; Carol Weber Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Esther M Friedman; Margaret M Weden; Regina A Shih; Stephanie Kovalchik; Reema Singh; Jose Escarce Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Julia Bedard-Thomas; Christian Gausvik; Jonathan Wessels; Saundra Regan; Keesha Goodnow; Anna Goroncy Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2019-10-28
Authors: Masha G Jones; Linda V DeCherrie; Yasmin S Meah; Cameron R Hernandez; Eric J Lee; David M Skovran; Theresa A Soriano; Katherine A Ornstein Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 1.095
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Alistair M Glidden; Melissa R Holloway; Gretchen L Birbeck; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Jennifer M Reckrey; Emma T Geduldig; Lee A Lindquist; R Sean Morrison; Kathrin Boerner; Alex D Federman; Abraham A Brody Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2020-05-15