↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

How U.S. Doctors Die: A Cohort Study of Healthcare Use at the End of Life

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
56 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
How U.S. Doctors Die: A Cohort Study of Healthcare Use at the End of Life
Published in
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, May 2016
DOI 10.1111/jgs.14112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel D Matlock, Traci E Yamashita, Sung-Joon Min, Alexander K Smith, Amy S Kelley, Stacy M Fischer

Abstract

To compare healthcare use in the last months of life between physicians and nonphysicians in the United States. A retrospective observational cohort study. United States. Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries: decedent physicians (n = 9,947) and a random sample of Medicare decedents (n = 192,006). Medicare Part A claims data from 2008 to 2010 were used to measure days in the hospital and proportion using hospice in the last 6 months of life as primary outcome measures adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and regional variations in health care. Inpatient hospital use in the last 6 months of life was no different between physicians and nonphysicians, although more physicians used hospice and for longer (using the hospital: odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-1.04; hospital days: mean difference 0.26, P = .14); dying in the hospital: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.95-1.04; intensive care unit (ICU) or critical care unit (CCU) days: mean difference 0.35 more days for physicians, P < .001); using hospice: OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.18-1.29; number of days in hospice: mean difference 2.06, P < .001). This retrospective, observational study is subject to unmeasured confounders and variation in coding practices, but it provides preliminary evidence of actual use. U.S. physicians were more likely to use hospice and ICU- or CCU-level care. Hospitalization rates were similar.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 9 13%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 292. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2022.
All research outputs
#117,301
of 25,081,419 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
#106
of 8,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,294
of 330,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
#3
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,081,419 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.