Claire K Ankuda1, Vicki A Freedman2, Kenneth E Covinsky3,4, Amy S Kelley1,5. 1. Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 2. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. 3. Division of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco, USA. 4. Division of Geriatrics, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA. 5. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Screening for functional disability is a promising strategy to identify high-need older adults. We compare 2 disability measures, activities of daily living (ADLs), and life space constriction (LSC), in predicting hospitalization and mortality in older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study of 30,885 observations of adults aged 65 years and older. Outcomes were 1-year mortality and hospitalization. Predictors were ADLs (receiving help with bathing, eating, dressing, toileting, getting out of bed, walking inside) and LSC (frequency of leaving home). RESULTS: Of respondents, 12.4% reported 3 or more ADLs and 10.8% reported rarely/never leaving home. ADL disability and LSC predicted high rates of 1-year mortality and hospitalization: of those with 3 or more ADLs, 46.4% died and 41.0% were hospitalized; of those who never/rarely left home, 40.7% died and 37.0% were hospitalized. Of those with both 3 or more ADLs and who never/rarely left home, 58.4% died. ADL and LSC disability combined was more predictive of 1-year mortality and hospitalization than either measure alone. ADL disability and LSC screens identified overlapping but distinct populations. LSC identified more women (72.6% vs 63.8% with ADL disability), more people who live alone (40.7% vs 30.7%), fewer who were White (71.7% vs 76.2%) with cancer (27.6% vs 32.4), and reported pain (67.1% vs 70.0%). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: LSC and ADLs both independently predicted mortality and hospitalization but using both screens was most predictive. Routine screening for ADLs and LSC could help health systems identify those at high risk for mortality and health care use.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Screening for functional disability is a promising strategy to identify high-need older adults. We compare 2 disability measures, activities of daily living (ADLs), and life space constriction (LSC), in predicting hospitalization and mortality in older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study of 30,885 observations of adults aged 65 years and older. Outcomes were 1-year mortality and hospitalization. Predictors were ADLs (receiving help with bathing, eating, dressing, toileting, getting out of bed, walking inside) and LSC (frequency of leaving home). RESULTS: Of respondents, 12.4% reported 3 or more ADLs and 10.8% reported rarely/never leaving home. ADL disability and LSC predicted high rates of 1-year mortality and hospitalization: of those with 3 or more ADLs, 46.4% died and 41.0% were hospitalized; of those who never/rarely left home, 40.7% died and 37.0% were hospitalized. Of those with both 3 or more ADLs and who never/rarely left home, 58.4% died. ADL and LSC disability combined was more predictive of 1-year mortality and hospitalization than either measure alone. ADL disability and LSC screens identified overlapping but distinct populations. LSC identified more women (72.6% vs 63.8% with ADL disability), more people who live alone (40.7% vs 30.7%), fewer who were White (71.7% vs 76.2%) with cancer (27.6% vs 32.4), and reported pain (67.1% vs 70.0%). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: LSC and ADLs both independently predicted mortality and hospitalization but using both screens was most predictive. Routine screening for ADLs and LSC could help health systems identify those at high risk for mortality and health care use.
Authors: Richard E Kennedy; Patricia Sawyer; Courtney P Williams; Alexander X Lo; Christine S Ritchie; David L Roth; Richard M Allman; Cynthia J Brown Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Amy S Kelley; Susan L Ettner; R Sean Morrison; Qingling Du; Catherine A Sarkisian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Leighton Chan; Shelli Beaver; Richard F Maclehose; Amitabh Jha; Matthew Maciejewski; Jason N Doctor Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Sarah L Szanton; Laken Roberts; Bruce Leff; Janiece L Walker; Christopher L Seplaki; Tacara Soones; Roland J Thorpe; Katherine A Ornstein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 4.147