Claire K Ankuda1, Mohammed Husain1, Evan Bollens-Lund1, Bruce Leff2, Christine S Ritchie3, Shelley H Liu4, Katherine A Ornstein1. 1. Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. The Center for Transformative Geriatric Research, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Mongan Institute Center for Aging and Serious Illness, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Center for Biostatistics, Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Approximately 2 million people, or 6% of older adults in the United States, are homebound. In cross-sectional studies, homebound older adults have high levels of morbidity and mortality, but there is little evidence of longitudinal outcomes after becoming homebound. The aim of this research is to prospectively assess over 6 years the dynamics of homebound status, ongoing community residence, and death in a population of community-dwelling older adults who are newly homebound. DESIGN/ SETTING: Prospective cohort study using 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), an annual, nationally-representative longitudinal study of aging in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and sixty seven newly homebound older adults in 2012. MEASUREMENTS: Homebound status was defined via self-report as living in the community but rarely/never leaving home in the prior month. Semi-homebound was defined as leaving the house only with difficulty or help. RESULTS: One year after becoming newly homebound, 33.1% remained homebound, 22.8% were completely independent, 23.8% were semi-homebound, 2.2% were in a nursing home, and 18.0% died. Homebound status is highly dynamic; 6 years after becoming homebound, 13.5% remained homebound and 65.0% had died. Recovering from being homebound at 1 year was associated with younger age and lower baseline rates of receiving help with activities of daily living, in particular, with bathing. CONCLUSION: Homebound status is a dynamic state. Even if transient, becoming homebound is strongly associated with functional decline and death. Identifying newly homebound older adults and developing interventions to mitigate associated negative consequences needs to be prioritized.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Approximately 2 million people, or 6% of older adults in the United States, are homebound. In cross-sectional studies, homebound older adults have high levels of morbidity and mortality, but there is little evidence of longitudinal outcomes after becoming homebound. The aim of this research is to prospectively assess over 6 years the dynamics of homebound status, ongoing community residence, and death in a population of community-dwelling older adults who are newly homebound. DESIGN/ SETTING: Prospective cohort study using 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), an annual, nationally-representative longitudinal study of aging in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and sixty seven newly homebound older adults in 2012. MEASUREMENTS: Homebound status was defined via self-report as living in the community but rarely/never leaving home in the prior month. Semi-homebound was defined as leaving the house only with difficulty or help. RESULTS: One year after becoming newly homebound, 33.1% remained homebound, 22.8% were completely independent, 23.8% were semi-homebound, 2.2% were in a nursing home, and 18.0% died. Homebound status is highly dynamic; 6 years after becoming homebound, 13.5% remained homebound and 65.0% had died. Recovering from being homebound at 1 year was associated with younger age and lower baseline rates of receiving help with activities of daily living, in particular, with bathing. CONCLUSION: Homebound status is a dynamic state. Even if transient, becoming homebound is strongly associated with functional decline and death. Identifying newly homebound older adults and developing interventions to mitigate associated negative consequences needs to be prioritized.
Authors: K Eric De Jonge; Namirah Jamshed; Daniel Gilden; Joanna Kubisiak; Stephanie R Bruce; George Taler Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Micah Segelman; Jill Szydlowski; Bruce Kinosian; Matthew McNabney; Donna B Raziano; Catherine Eng; Christine van Reenen; Helena Temkin-Greener Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Thomas Edes; Bruce Kinosian; Nancy H Vuckovic; Linda Olivia Nichols; Margaret Mary Becker; Monir Hossain Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Katherine A Ornstein; Shelley H Liu; Mohammed Husain; Claire K Ankuda; Evan Bollens-Lund; Amy S Kelley; Melissa M Garrido Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer M Reckrey; Bruce Leff; Raj G Kumar; Cynthia Yee; Melissa M Garrido; Katherine A Ornstein Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 7.802
Authors: Benjamin H Oseroff; Claire K Ankuda; Evan Bollens-Lund; Melissa M Garrido; Katherine A Ornstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 6.473