Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 376

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Epidemiology of the Homebound Population in the United States

Open access
Ornstein, Katherine A., Leff, Bruce, Covinsky, Kenneth E., Ritchie, Christine S., Federman, Alex D., Roberts, Laken, Kelley, Amy S., Siu, Albert L., Szanton, Sarah L.·2015·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Increasing numbers of older, community-dwelling adults have functional impairments that prevent them from leaving their homes. It is uncertain how many people who live in the United States are homebound. OBJECTIVES: To develop measures of the frequency of leaving and ability to leave the home and to use these measures to estimate the size of the homebound population in the US population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study collected in 2011 in the contiguous United States. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 7603 noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We defined homebound persons as those who never (completely homebound) or rarely (mostly homebound) left the home in the last month. We defined semihomebound persons as those who only left the home with assistance or had difficulty or needed help leaving the home. We compared demographic, clinical, and health care utilization characteristics across different homebound status categories. RESULTS: In 2011, the prevalence of homebound individuals was 5.6% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.2%), including an estimated 395,422 people who were completely homebound and 1,578,984 people who were mostly homebound. Among semihomebound individuals, the prevalence of those who never left home without personal assistance was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.8%), and the prevalence of those who required help or had difficulty was 11.7% (95% CI, 10.9%-12.6%). Completely homebound individuals were more likely to be older (83.2 vs 74.3 years, P < .001), female (67.9% vs 53.4%, P < .006), and of nonwhite race (34.1% vs 17.6%, P < .001) and have less education and income than nonhomebound individuals. They also had more chronic conditions (4.9 vs 2.5) and were more likely to have been hospitalized in the last 12 months (52.1% vs 16.2%) (P < .001 for both). Only 11.9% of completely homebound individuals reported receiving primary care services at home. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In total, 5.6% of the elderly, community-dwelling Medicare population (approximately 2 million people) were completely or mostly homebound in 2011. Our findings can inform improvements in clinical and social services for these individuals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1849

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 376

Metadata

Authors
Ornstein, K. A., Leff, B., Covinsky, K. E., Ritchie, C. S., Federman, A. D., Roberts, L., Kelley, A. S., Siu, A. L., & Szanton, S. L.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
175
Issue
7
Pages
1180
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1881927933
Cited by
376
References
0
FWCI
21.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epidemiology of the Homebound Population in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1849
The paper
Ornstein, K. A., Leff, B., Covinsky, K. E., Ritchie, C. S., Federman, A. D., Roberts, L., Kelley, A. S., Siu, A. L., & Szanton, S. L. (2015). Epidemiology of the Homebound Population in the United States. JAMA Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1849

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.