Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Factors Associated With Loss of Usual Source of Care Among Older Adults

Stephanie K. Nothelle, Cynthia Boyd, Orla Sheehan and Jennifer L. Wolff
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2018, 16 (6) 538-545; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2283
Stephanie K. Nothelle
1Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: snothel1@jhmi.edu
Cynthia Boyd
1Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
2Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Orla Sheehan
1Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer L. Wolff
2Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Participant flow diagram: loss of usual source of care.

    FQ = Facility questionnaire only, no participant interview; USC = Usual source of care

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Population estimates for longitudinal follow-up of individuals who lost a USC in round 2.

    USC = usual source of care.

    aPercentages at each round represent the number of people in each category (deceased, still no USC, gained a USC, missing) in that round divided by the number of people who reported a loss of USC in the previous round.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Round 1 Characteristics of Older Adults Who Did and Did Not Lose a USC Over 6 Yearsa,b,c

    CharacteristicUnweighted PopulationPercentages (n=7,226)Weighted Population Estimates (n =35,305,631)d
    Lost USC, No. (%)Retained USC, No. (%)P ValueLost USC, %Retained USC, %P Value
    Male186 (46)2,791 (41).044843.14
    Age, y
     65–74169 (42)2,640 (39).295752.16
     75–84147 (37)2,750 (40)2934
     ≥8587 (21)1,433 (21)1413
    Race/Ethnicityd
     White, non-Hispanic249 (62)4,769 (70).0017782.05
     Nonwhite, non-Hispanic118 (29)1,658 (24)1211
     Hispanic396 (6)36 (9)107
    Marital status
     Married or with partner175 (43)3,463 (51).0044958.008
     Divorced, widowed, separated228 (57)3,360 (49)5142
    Type of residence
     Community374 (93)6,467 (95).099095.005
     Residential care29 (7)356 (5)105
    Education
     Less than high school diploma126 (31)1,799 (26).032421.27
     More than high school diploma277 (69)5,024 (74)7679
    Census division
     Northeast73 (18)1,283 (19).821720.56
     Midwest97 (24)1,587 (23)2223
     South150 (37)2,652 (39)3837
     West83 (21)1,301 (19)2420
    Self-Rated health
     Excellent/Very good160 (40)2,267 (39).834344.93
     Good130 (32)2,197 (32)3231
     Fair/Poor113 (28)2,002 (29)2525
    Fallen in last year128 (32)2,146 (31).903430.20
    Depressive symptoms74 (18)1,087 (16).201714.17
    Number of chronic conditionsd
     0–1127 (32)1,634 (24).0013227.09
     2103 (26)1,712 (25)2625
     393 (23)1,590 (23)2222
     ≥480 (20)1,887 (28)2025
    Admitted to hospital in last year98 (24)1,621 (24).802321.48
    Needed self-care help in last year69 (17)1,307 (19).311616.81
    Has a transportation barrier43 (11)518 (8).0386.03
    Insurancee
     Supplemental or drug380 (94)6,562 (96).069496.11
     Medicaid74 (18)1,036 (15)1212.93
    Income quartile, $
     1 (<13,000)118 (29)1,709 (25).0012420.003
     2 (13,001–25,000)125 (31)1,701 (25)2923
     3 (25,001–50,000)87 (22)1,776 (26)2428
     4 (>50,000)73 (18)1,637 (24)2330
    • USC = usual source of care.

      Note: Source: the 2011–2016 National Health and Aging Trends Study.26 Estimates have been weighted to reflect survey design.

    • a Includes community dwelling (n = 7,197) and residential care participants (n = 412) who completed a sample person interview. Excludes participants in residential care (n = 168) and participants in nursing home (n = 468) who did not complete a sample person interview.

    • b Only 583 participants (8%) required a proxy to complete the interview. There was no significant difference in respondent type (P=.61) between those who did and did not lose a usual source of care.

    • c For time-varying covariates, characteristics are reflective of baseline, round 1 (2011) responses rather than responses at the time of loss of USC.

    • ↵d Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

    • ↵e Insurance categories are not mutually exclusive, percentages will not sum to 100%.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Weighted aOR of Factors Associated With Loss of USC

    Adjusted OR (95% CI)P Value
    Male1.45 (1.08–1.93).01
    Age, y
     65–74ref–
     75–840.82 (0.64–1.03).09
     >850.77 (0.56–1.08).13
    Race/Ethnicity
     White, non-Hispanicref–
     Nonwhite, non-Hispanic1.15 (0.91–1.45).24
     Hispanic1.96 (1.30–2.97).002
    Married or with a partner0.75 (0.56–1.01).06
    Residence
     Communityref–
     Residential care1.94 (1.24–3.05).005
     Nursing home6.41 (3.20–12.83)<.001
     Proxy respondent1.48 (0.97–2.25).07
    More than high school diploma0.99 (0.78–1.27).94
    Census division
     Northeastref–
     Midwest1.11 (0.73–1.70).62
     South1.22 (0.91–1.62).17
    West1.26 (0.89–1.79).19
     Self-Rated health
     Excellent/Very Goodref–
     Good0.83 (0.63–1.09).01
     Fair/Poor1.22 (0.80–1.85).34
    Fallen in last year0.77 (0.60–0.99).05
    Depressive symptoms1.40 (1.04–1.89).03
    Number of chronic conditions
     0–1ref–
     20.82 (0.64–1.05).12
     30.75 (0.57–0.98).04
     ≥40.42 (0.31–0.59)<.001
    Admitted to hospital in last year1.08 (0.86–1.35).50
    Moved to a new residence2.08 (1.35–3.21).001
    Needs self-care help0.93 (0.71–1.22).60
    Has a transportation barrier1.67 (1.16–2.39).006
    Insurance
     Supplemental or drug0.52 (0.34–0.80).004
     Medicaid0.67 (0.47–0.94).02
    Income quartile, $
     1 (<13,000)ref–
     2 (13,001–25,000)1.12 (0.80–1.57).49
     3 (25,001–50,000)0.82 (0.58–1.17).27
     4 (>50,000)0.66 (0.44–0.99).05
    • USC = usual source of care; aOR = adjusted odds ratio.

      Note: Source: the 2011–2016 National Health and Aging Trends Study.26 Estimates have been weighted to reflect survey design.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Factors Associated With Loss of Usual Source of Care Among Older Adults

    Stephanie K. Nothelle , and colleagues

    Background Access to a usual source of medical care is particularly important for older adults as they manage chronic medical conditions. Although most older adults have a usual source of care, loss of that source of care and associated factors have not previously been examined.

    What This Study Found According to this national study, odds of losing a usual source of care are higher among older adults who have unmet transportation needs, who move to a new residence, or who report symptoms of depression. Odds of losing a usual source of care are lower for older adults with four or more chronic conditions and with supplemental or Medicaid insurance coverage. The study followed 7,609 participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries age 65 years and older, for up to six years (2011-2016). Of the 95 percent of older adults who reported having a usual source of care in 2011, five percent subsequently did not. Most participants (60 percent) who reported loss of a usual source of care regained it by the next round of the study, however, those who did not regain it were more likely to continue to report lack of a usual source of care. The study results suggest that clinical as well as social factors are important in an older adult's ability to maintain a stable relationship with a clinician over time.

    Implications

    • The authors call for future work to assess how changes in health insurance, transportation and residence affect older adults' ability to experience a continuous source of care and the impact of that continuity on functional decline and hospital admissions.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 16 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 16 (6)
Vol. 16, Issue 6
November/December 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Factors Associated With Loss of Usual Source of Care Among Older Adults
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Factors Associated With Loss of Usual Source of Care Among Older Adults
Stephanie K. Nothelle, Cynthia Boyd, Orla Sheehan, Jennifer L. Wolff
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2018, 16 (6) 538-545; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2283

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Factors Associated With Loss of Usual Source of Care Among Older Adults
Stephanie K. Nothelle, Cynthia Boyd, Orla Sheehan, Jennifer L. Wolff
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2018, 16 (6) 538-545; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2283
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • MEASURES
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Exploration of the psychometric properties of the Person-Centred Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) in a Chinese primary care population in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional validation study
  • Physical Distancing With Social Connectedness
  • A New Comprehensive Measure of High-Value Aspects of Primary Care
  • In This Issue: Continuity, Relationships, and the Illusion of a Steady State
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Treatment of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in Primary Care and Its Patient-Level Variation: An American Family Cohort Study
  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
  • Adverse Outcomes Associated With Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Chronic illness
    • Prevention
  • Person groups:
    • Older adults
    • Vulnerable populations
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Access
    • Continuity
  • Other topics:
    • Disparities in health and health care
    • Social / cultural context
    • Multimorbidity

Keywords

  • aging
  • continuity of care
  • access to care

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine