Predictors of Preference for Hospice Care Among Diverse Older Adults

Author:

Cagle John G.1,LaMantia Michael A.2,Williams Sharon W.3,Pek Jolynn4,Edwards Lloyd J.3

Affiliation:

1. School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA

2. Indiana University Center for Aging Research and Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, IN, USA

3. Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

4. Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of preference for hospice care and explore whether the effect of these predictors on preference for hospice care were moderated by race. Methods: An analysis of the North Carolina AARP End of Life Survey (N = 3035) was conducted using multinomial logistic modeling to identify predictors of preference for hospice care. Response options included yes, no, or don’t know. Results: Fewer black respondents reported a preference for hospice (63.8% vs 79.2% for white respondents, P < .001). While the proportion of black and white respondents expressing a clear preference against hospice was nearly equal (4.5% and 4.0%, respectively), black individuals were nearly twice as likely to report a preference of “don’t know” (31.5% vs 16.8%). Gender, race, age, income, knowledge of Medicare coverage of hospice, presence of an advance directive, end-of-life care concerns, and religiosity/spirituality predicted hospice care preference. Religiosity/spirituality however, was moderated by race. Race interacted with religiosity/spirituality in predicting hospice care preference such that religiosity/spirituality promoted hospice care preference among White respondents, but not black respondents. Conclusions: Uncertainties about hospice among African Americans may contribute to disparities in utilization. Efforts to improve access to hospice should consider pre-existing preferences for end-of-life care and account for the complex demographic, social, and cultural factors that help shape these preferences.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3