Long-Term Care Admissions Following Hospitalization: The Role of Social Vulnerability
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
2.3. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Clegg, A.; Young, J.; Iliffe, S.; Rikkert, M.O.; Rockwood, K.; Rockwood, K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet 2013, 381, 752–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin, J.S.; Howrey, B.; Zhang, D.D.; Kuo, Y.F. Risk of Continued Institutionalization after Hospitalization in Older Adults. J. Gerontol. Ser. A: Boil. Sci. Med. Sci. 2011, 66, 1321–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahn, M.; Kwon, H.J.; Kang, J. Supporting Aging-in-Place Well: Findings From a Cluster Analysis of the Reasons for Aging-in-Place and Perceptions of Well-Being. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moon, H.; Rote, S.; Haley, W.E. Factors that contribute to remaining in the community among older adults. Aging Ment. Health 2018, 22, 1502–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maxwell, C.J.; Soo, A.; Hogan, D.B.; Wodchis, W.P.; Gilbart, E.; Amuah, J.; Eliasziw, M.; Hagen, B.; Strain, L.A. Predictors of Nursing Home Placement from Assisted Living Settings in Canada. Can. J. Aging La Rev. Can. du Vieil. 2013, 32, 333–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gnjidic, D.; Stanaway, F.F.; Cumming, R.; Waite, L.; Blyth, F.; Naganathan, V.; Handelsman, D.J.; Le Couteur, D.G. Mild Cognitive Impairment Predicts Institutionalization among Older Men: A Population-Based Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e46061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanratty, B.; Stow, D.; Moore, D.C.; Valtorta, N.K.; Matthews, F. Loneliness as a risk factor for care home admission in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Age Ageing 2018, 47, 896–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luppa, M.; Luck, T.; Weyerer, S.; König, H.H.; Brähler, E.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. Prediction of institutionalization in the elderly. A systematic review. Age Ageing 2010, 39, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.L.; Langan, J.C.; Krampe, J.; Krieger, M.; Lorenz, R.A.; Schneider, J.K.; Smith, J.M.; Lach, H.W. A Model of Risk Reduction for Older Adults Vulnerable to Nursing Home Placement. Res. Theory Nurs. Pr. 2014, 28, 162–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, J.K.E.; Walesby, K.; Hamilton, L.; Armstrong, C.; Starr, J.M.; Reynish, E.L.; MacLullich, A.M.J.; Quinn, T.J.; Shenkin, S.D. Predicting discharge to institutional long-term care following acute hospitalisation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2017, 46, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vuong, Q.H.; Ho, T.M.; Nguyen, H.K.; Vuong, T.T. Healthcare consumers’ sensitivity to costs: A reflection on behavioural economics from an emerging market. Palgrave Commun. 2018, 4, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrew, M.K.; Keefe, J.M. Social vulnerability from a social ecology perspective: A cohort study of older adults from the National Population Health Survey of Canada. BMC Geriatr. 2014, 14, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andrew, M.K. Social Vulnerability in Old Age. In Brocklehurst’s Textbook of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 198–204. ISBN 9781416062318. [Google Scholar]
- Andrew, M.K.; Mitnitski, A.; Kirkland, S.A.; Rockwood, K. The impact of social vulnerability on the survival of the fittest older adults. Age Ageing 2012, 41, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andrew, M.K.; Shinde, V.; Ye, L.; Hatchette, T.; Haguinet, F.; Dos Santos, G.; McElhaney, J.E.; Ambrose, A.; Boivin, G.; Bowie, W.; et al. The Importance of Frailty in the Assessment of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness against Influenza-Related Hospitalization in Elderly People. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 216, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Searle, S.D.; Mitnitski, A.B.; Gahbauer, E.A.; Gill, T.M.; Rockwood, K. A standard procedure for creating a fraily index. BMC Geriatr. 2008, 8, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Firth, D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 1993, 80, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinze, G.; Schemper, M. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 2409–2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 12 July 2019).
- Heinze, G.; Ploner, M. R package version 1.23. Logistf: Firth’s biased-reduced logistic regression. 2018. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=logistf (accessed on 20 June 2019).
- Godin, J.; Armstrong, J.J.; Wallace, L.; Rockwood, K.; Andrew, M.K. The impact of frailty and cognitive impairment on quality of life: Employment and social context matter. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2018, 31, 789–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godin, J.; Armstrong, J.J.; Rockwood, K.; Andrew, M.K. Dynamics of Frailty and Cognition after Age 50: Why It Matters that Cognitive Decline is Mostly Seen in Old Age. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2017, 58, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Kiyoshige, E.; Kabayama, M.; Gondo, Y.; Masui, Y.; Ryuno, H.; Sawayama, Y.; Inoue, T.; Akagi, Y.; Sekiguchi, T.; Tanaka, K.; et al. Association between long-term care and chronic and lifestyle-related disease modified by social profiles in community-dwelling people aged 80 and 90; SONIC study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2019, 81, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bunt, S.; Steverink, N.; Andrew, M.K.; Van Der Schans, C.P.; Hobbelen, H. Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Social Vulnerability Index for Use in the Dutch Context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2017, 14, 1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garner, R.; Tanuseputro, P.; Manuel, D.G.; Sanmartin, C. Transitions to long-term and residential care among older Canadians. Heal. Rep. 2018, 29, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
- Saunders, C.; Carter, D.J. Right care, right place, right time: Improving the timeliness of health care in New South Wales through a public–private hospital partnership. Aust. Heal. Rev. 2017, 41, 511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Item | Coding |
---|---|
Lives alone | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Current marital status | 0 = married or common law; 1 = single, divorced or widowed |
Highest level of education | 0 = post-secondary (college, university bachelor, graduate or professional degree; 0.33 = trades or apprenticeship; 0.67 = high school; 1 = less than high school |
Ever homeless | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Lives in a rooming house, group home, shelter, or is currently homeless | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Feels that income currently satisfies needs | 0 = yes; 1 = no |
How often does the patient participated in activities, groups, or clubs in the community | 0 = often (weekly); 0.5 = sometimes; 1 = never |
Does the patient volunteer in the community | 0 = yes; 1 = no |
How often does the patient attend religious services | 0 = often (weekly); 0.5 = sometimes; 1 = never |
Does the patient have someone to count on for help or support | 0 = yes; 1 = no |
Does the patient feel they need more help or support | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Does the patient have someone to confide in | 0 = yes; 1 = no |
How often does the patient get together and socialize with family/relatives | 0 = often (weekly); 0.5 = sometimes; 1 = never |
How often does the patient get together and socialize with friends | 0 = often (weekly); 0.5 = sometimes; 1 = never |
Does the patient feel lonely | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Does the patient say that most people can be trusted | 0 = yes; 1 = no |
Does the patient feel safe their neighborhood | 0 = yes; 1 = no |
Does the patient feel they have control over things that happen to them | 0 = yes; 1 = no |
Main Analyses N = 475 | Sensitivity Analysis 1 N = 501 | Sensitivity Analysis 2 N = 515 | Sensitivity Analysis 3 N = 542 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Women (%) | 280 (58.9) | 297 (59.3) | 300 (58.3) | 317 (58.5) |
Age (SD) | 78.6 (7.9) | 79.0 (8.0) | 78.7 (8.0) | 79.1 (8.1) |
LTC placement prior to admission (%) | NA | 26 (5.2) | NA | 27 (5.0) |
LTC placement at follow-up (%) | 15 (3.2) | 38 (7.6) | 15 (2.9) | 38 (7.0) |
SVI (SD) | 0.30 (0.13) | 0.30 (0.13) | 0.30 (0.13) | 0.30 (0.13) |
FI at baseline (SD) | 0.19 (0.10) | 0.19 (0.10) | 0.19 (0.10) | 0.19 (0.11) |
FI at admission (SD) | 0.25 (0.12) | 0.26 (0.13) | 0.25 (0.12) | 0.26 (0.13) |
Dementia (%) | 25 (5.3) | 32 (6.4) | 27 (5.2) | 34 (6.3) |
Main Analyses | Sensitivity 1 | Sensitivity 2 | Sensitivity 3 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | OR | b | OR | b | OR | b | OR | |
SVI | 0.89 (−1.22, 3.13) | 2.43 (0.30, 22.86) | 0.40 (−1.21, 2.35) | 1.50 (0.30, 10.53) | 0.81 (−1.27, 3.07) | 2.26 (0.28, 21.65) | 0.34 (−1.27, 2.17) | 1.41 (0.28, 8.75) |
FI_baseline | 2.71 (0.78, 4.97) | 14.98 (2.17, 144.71) | 2.50 (0.79, 4.37) | 12.23 (2.21, 79.05) | 2.67 (0.77, 4.86) | 14.50 (2.17, 129.41) | 2.54 (0.81, 4.37) | 12.68 (2.25, 79.42) |
FI_admission | 0.43 (−0.39, 1.25) | 1.55 (0.68, 3.48) | 0.12 (−0.67, 0.87) | 1.13 (0.51, 2.40) | 0.41 (−0.43, 1.23) | 1.51 (0.65, 3.42) | −0.08 (−0.88, 0.67) | 0.93 (0.42, 1.96) |
Age | −0.24 (−0.51, 0.07) | 0.79 (0.60, 1.07) | −0.26 (−0.48, 0.01) | 0.77 (0.62, 1.01) | −0.25 (−0.50, 0.03) | 0.78 (0.61, 1.03) | −0.26 (−0.48, −0.02) | 0.77 (0.62, 0.98) |
Sex (women) | 2.78 (−2.19, 7.94) | 16.11 (0.11, 2813.90) | 2.74 (−1.19, 6.81) | 15.42 (0.30, 905.87) | 2.77 (−1.82, 7.68) | 15.96 (0.16, 2171.94) | 2.80 (−1.05, 6.84) | 16.49 (0.35, 930.64) |
Prior LTC | NA | NA | 5.30 (3.93, 6.99) | 199.61 (51.14, 1081.85) | NA | NA | 5.21 (3.90, 6.80) | 182.44 (49.56, 896.51) |
SVI by FI_baseline | −0.70 (−1.26, −0.24) | 0.50 (0.28, 0.79) | −0.65 (−1.10, −0.25) | 0.52 (0.33, 0.78) | −0.69 (−1.24, −0.24) | 0.50 (0.29, 0.79) | −0.64 (−1.08, −0.23) | 0.53 (0.34, 0.79) |
SVI by Age | 0.09 (0.00, 0.16) | 1.09 (1.00, 1.18) | 0.10 (0.03, 0.17) | 1.11 (1.03, 1.19) | 0.09 (0.01, 0.16) | 1.09 (1.01, 1.18) | 0.10 (0.04, 0.17) | 1.11 (1.04, 1.19) |
SVI by Sex | −0.41 (−1.70, 1.12) | 0.66 (0.18, 3.07) | −0.54 (−1.62, 0.59) | 0.58 (0.20, 1.81) | −0.39 (−1.63, 1.06) | 0.68 (0.20, 2.88) | −0.50 (−1.56, 0.64) | 0.61 (0.21, 1.89) |
Age | 70 years | 80 years | 90 years |
---|---|---|---|
FI = 0.05 | 2.63 (0.41, 17.62) | 6.20 (0.89, 43.21) | 14.64 (1.55, 127.21) |
FI = 0.15 | 1.30 (0.28, 5.34) | 3.07 (0.62, 13.28) | 7.25 (1.06, 41.84) |
FI = 0.25 | 0.65 (0.17, 1.88) | 1.52 (0.40, 4.46) | 3.60 (0.68, 15.17) |
FI = 0.35 | 0.32 (0.09, 0.94) | 0.76 (0.23, 1.87) | 1.78 (0.39, 6.27) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Godin, J.; Theou, O.; Black, K.; McNeil, S.A.; Andrew, M.K. Long-Term Care Admissions Following Hospitalization: The Role of Social Vulnerability. Healthcare 2019, 7, 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7030091
Godin J, Theou O, Black K, McNeil SA, Andrew MK. Long-Term Care Admissions Following Hospitalization: The Role of Social Vulnerability. Healthcare. 2019; 7(3):91. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7030091
Chicago/Turabian StyleGodin, Judith, Olga Theou, Karen Black, Shelly A. McNeil, and Melissa K. Andrew. 2019. "Long-Term Care Admissions Following Hospitalization: The Role of Social Vulnerability" Healthcare 7, no. 3: 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7030091
APA StyleGodin, J., Theou, O., Black, K., McNeil, S. A., & Andrew, M. K. (2019). Long-Term Care Admissions Following Hospitalization: The Role of Social Vulnerability. Healthcare, 7(3), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7030091