Center for Aging and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Room 515, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Apr;58(4):696-701. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02770.x.
To describe retention according to age and visit type (clinic, home, telephone) and to determine characteristics associated with visit types for a longitudinal epidemiological study in older adults.
Longitudinal cohort study.
Four U.S. clinical sites.
Five thousand eight hundred eighty-eight Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) participants aged 65 to 100 at 1989/90 or 1992/93 enrollment (58.6% female; 15.7% black). CHS participants were contacted every 6 months, with annual assessments through 1999 and in 2005/06 for the All Stars Study visit of the CHS cohort (aged 77-102; 66.5% female; 16.6% black).
All annual contacts through 1999 (n=43,772) and for the 2005/06 visit (n=1,942).
CHS had 43,772 total participant contacts from 1989 to 1999: 34,582 clinic visits (79.0%), 2,238 refusals (5.1%), 4,401 telephone visits (10.1%), 1,811 home visits (4.1%), and 740 other types (1.7%). In 2005/06, the All Stars participants of the CHS cohort had 36.6% clinic, 22.3% home, and 41.1% telephone visits. Compared with participants aged 65 to 69, odds ratios of not attending a CHS clinic visit were 1.82 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.54-2.13), 2.94 (95% CI=2.45-3.57), 4.55 (95% CI=3.70-5.56), and 9.09 (95% CI=7.69-11.11) for those aged 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older, respectively, in sex-adjusted regression. In multivariable regression, participants with a 2005/06 clinic visit were younger, more likely to be male and in good health, and had had better cognitive and physical function 7 years earlier than participants with other visit types. Participants with home, telephone, and missing visits were similar on characteristics measured 7 years earlier.
Offering home, telephone, and proxy visits are essential to optimizing follow-up of aging cohorts. Home visits increased in-person retention from 36.5% to 58.8% and diversified the cohort with respect to age, health, and physical functioning.
根据年龄和就诊类型（门诊、家庭、电话）描述保留情况，并确定与老年人纵向流行病学研究就诊类型相关的特征。
纵向队列研究。
美国四个临床站点。
1989/90 年或 1992/93 年登记时年龄在 65 至 100 岁的 5888 名心血管健康研究（CHS）参与者（58.6%为女性；15.7%为黑人）。CHS 参与者每 6 个月联系一次，每年评估一次，直到 1999 年，并在 2005/06 年进行 CHS 队列的全明星研究访问（年龄 77-102 岁；66.5%为女性；16.6%为黑人）。
1989 年至 1999 年的所有年度联系（n=43772）和 2005/06 年的访问（n=1942）。
1989 年至 1999 年，CHS 共有 43772 名参与者总接触：34582 次门诊就诊（79.0%）、2238 次拒绝（5.1%）、4401 次电话就诊（10.1%）、1811 次家庭就诊（4.1%）和 740 次其他类型就诊（1.7%）。在 2005/06 年，CHS 全明星研究参与者的门诊就诊率为 36.6%，家庭就诊率为 22.3%，电话就诊率为 41.1%。与 65-69 岁的参与者相比，未参加 CHS 门诊就诊的可能性比分别为 1.82（95%置信区间（CI）=1.54-2.13）、2.94（95% CI=2.45-3.57）、4.55（95% CI=3.70-5.56）和 9.09（95% CI=7.69-11.11），分别为 70-74 岁、75-79 岁、80-84 岁和 85 岁及以上的参与者（在性别调整的回归中）。在多变量回归中，参加 2005/06 年门诊就诊的参与者更年轻，更可能是男性，健康状况更好，并且在 7 年前的认知和身体功能方面表现更好，而其他就诊类型的参与者则相似。7 年前进行测量的家庭、电话和缺失就诊的参与者具有相似的特征。
提供家庭、电话和代理就诊对于优化老龄化队列的随访至关重要。家庭就诊将面对面就诊率从 36.5%提高到 58.8%，并使队列在年龄、健康和身体功能方面多样化。
