Kaufman Brystana G, Huang Ro W, Holland Diane E, Vanderboom Catherine E, Ingram Cory, Wild Ellen M, Dose Ann Marie, Stiles Carole, Gustavson Allison M, Mandrekar Jay, Van Houtven Courtney H, Griffin Joan M
Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Margolis Institute for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024 Aug;72(8):2523-2531. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18934. Epub 2024 May 2.
Rural family caregivers (FCGs) in the United States often experience high economic costs. This randomized controlled trial compared a transitional palliative care intervention (TPC) to support FCGs of seriously ill care recipients (CRs) to an attention control condition. We evaluated the TPC's effect on healthcare use and out-of-pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs.
TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR discharge from the hospital. After discharge, a research assistant called all FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect self-reported healthcare utilization (e.g., outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out-of-pocket healthcare spending (e.g., deductibles and coinsurance), and health-related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using negative binomial regressions.
The study included 282 FCG-CR dyads across three U.S. states. Follow-up over the 6-month period was shortened by high CR mortality rates across both arms (29%), but was similar across arms. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0. 99). Total out-of-pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control. Across both groups, mean out-of-pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56-0.89).
This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce the number of nights in the hospital for seriously ill patients. Yet, overall rural FCGs and seriously ill CRs experience substantial out-of-pocket economic costs in the 6 months following hospitalization. Transitional care intervention design should consider impacts on patient and caregiver spending.
gov # is NCT03339271.
美国农村家庭照料者(FCG)常常面临高昂的经济成本。这项随机对照试验将一种过渡性姑息治疗干预措施(TPC)与一种注意力控制条件进行了比较,以支持重症受照料者(CR)的家庭照料者。我们评估了TPC对家庭照料者和受照料者医疗保健使用情况及自付费用的影响。
TPC组的家庭照料者在受照料者出院后通过视频通话接受为期8周的教学、指导和咨询。出院后,一名研究助理每月给所有家庭照料者打电话,最长持续6个月或直至受照料者死亡,以收集自我报告的医疗保健利用情况(如门诊、急诊科和住院)、家庭照料者和受照料者的自付医疗费用(如免赔额和共同保险)以及与健康相关的旅行费用(如交通、住宿、食品)。发病率比(IRR)使用负二项回归进行估计。
该研究纳入了美国三个州的282对家庭照料者 - 受照料者组合。由于两组的受照料者死亡率都很高(29%),6个月的随访期缩短,但两组相似。TPC减少了受照料者的住院天数(IRR = 0.75;95%置信区间[CI] = 0.56 - 0.99)。TPC组与对照组的总自付费用没有显著差异。在两组中,组合的平均自付费用为1401.85美元,其中医疗费用为1048.58美元,交通费用为136.79美元。TPC组报告的住宿费用较低(IRR = 0.71;95% CI = 0.56 - 0.89)。
本研究为姑息治疗干预措施可减少重症患者住院天数的证据提供了补充。然而,总体而言,农村家庭照料者和重症受照料者在住院后的6个月内仍面临大量自付经济成本。过渡性护理干预设计应考虑对患者和照料者支出的影响。
gov编号为NCT03339271。