Marisa R Eastman1, Viktoryia A Kalesnikava1, Briana Mezuk2. 1. Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: bmezuk@umich.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to examine variation in patient experiences and perceptions of care coordination across sociodemographic and health factors. METHODS: Data come from the 2016 Health and Retirement Study (N = 1, 216). Three domains of coordination were assessed: 1) Perceptions (e.g., patient impressions of provider-provider communication), 2) Tangible supports (e.g., meeting with a care coordinator, being accompanied to appointments), and 3) Technical supports (e.g., use of a "patient portal"). Logistic regression was used to quantify the frequency of each domain and examine variation by racial minority status, socioeconomic status, and health status. RESULTS: Approximately 42% of older adults perceived poor care coordination, including 14.8% who reported receiving seemingly conflicting advice from different providers. Only one-third had ever met with a formal care coordinator, and 40% were occasionally accompanied to appointments. Although racial minorities were less likely to have access to technical supports, they were more likely to use them. Better perceived coordination was associated with higher care satisfaction (Odds Ratio: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.27-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Important gaps in care coordination remain for older adults. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers should consider assessing patient perceptions of care coordination to address these gaps in an equitable manner.
INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to examine variation in patient experiences and perceptions of care coordination across sociodemographic and health factors. METHODS: Data come from the 2016 Health and Retirement Study (N = 1, 216). Three domains of coordination were assessed: 1) Perceptions (e.g., patient impressions of provider-provider communication), 2) Tangible supports (e.g., meeting with a care coordinator, being accompanied to appointments), and 3) Technical supports (e.g., use of a "patient portal"). Logistic regression was used to quantify the frequency of each domain and examine variation by racial minority status, socioeconomic status, and health status. RESULTS: Approximately 42% of older adults perceived poor care coordination, including 14.8% who reported receiving seemingly conflicting advice from different providers. Only one-third had ever met with a formal care coordinator, and 40% were occasionally accompanied to appointments. Although racial minorities were less likely to have access to technical supports, they were more likely to use them. Better perceived coordination was associated with higher care satisfaction (Odds Ratio: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.27-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Important gaps in care coordination remain for older adults. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers should consider assessing patient perceptions of care coordination to address these gaps in an equitable manner.
Authors: Alisa Khan; Nancy D Spector; Jennifer D Baird; Michele Ashland; Amy J Starmer; Glenn Rosenbluth; Briana M Garcia; Katherine P Litterer; Jayne E Rogers; Anuj K Dalal; Stuart Lipsitz; Catherine S Yoon; Katherine R Zigmont; Amy Guiot; Jennifer K O'Toole; Aarti Patel; Zia Bismilla; Maitreya Coffey; Kate Langrish; Rebecca L Blankenburg; Lauren A Destino; Jennifer L Everhart; Brian P Good; Irene Kocolas; Rajendu Srivastava; Sharon Calaman; Sharon Cray; Nicholas Kuzma; Kheyandra Lewis; E Douglas Thompson; Jennifer H Hepps; Joseph O Lopreiato; Clifton E Yu; Helen Haskell; Elizabeth Kruvand; Dale A Micalizzi; Wilma Alvarado-Little; Benard P Dreyer; H Shonna Yin; Anupama Subramony; Shilpa J Patel; Theodore C Sectish; Daniel C West; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Justin K Benzer; Sara J Singer; David C Mohr; Nathalie McIntosh; Mark Meterko; Varsha G Vimalananda; Kimberly L L Harvey; Marjorie Nealon Seibert; Martin P Charns Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lipika Samal; Patricia C Dykes; Jeffrey O Greenberg; Omar Hasan; Arjun K Venkatesh; Lynn A Volk; David W Bates Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Mark D Williams; Gladys B Asiedu; Dawn Finnie; Claire Neely; Jason Egginton; Lila J Finney Rutten; Robert M Jacobson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 2.655