Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of homebound patients by region

From: The workload for home visits by German family practitioners: an analysis of regional variation in a cross-sectional study

Characteristics

Regions

All

Rural

< 5000

Semi-rural

5000 – 10,000

Semi-urban

10,000 – 50,000

Urban

> 50,000

N

3673

1119

643

1123

788

Gendere

 Female

66.8%f

65.7%a

68%a

66.8%a

67.4%a

 Male

31.9%

33.6%a

31.6%a

32.2%a

29.4%a

Ageg

 Mean (± SD)

82.3 (± 11.2)

82.6 (± 11.7)

82.2 (± 10.8)

81.6 (± 11.6)

82.7 (± 10.3)

 95% CI

81.9–82.6

81.9–83.3

81.4–83.1

80.9–82.3

82–83.5

 Min – Max

2–104

2–104

5–102

27–102

24–101

Chronic diseasesh

 Mean (± SD)

6.4 (± 3.9)

7*** (± 4)

6.7*** (± 4.1)

6** (± 3.7)

5.8 (± 4)

 95% CI

6.3–6.5

6.8–7.2

6.4–7

5.8–6.2

5.6–6.1

 Min – Max

1–36

1–29

1–31

1–35

1–36

Housing situatione

 Private homesi

56%

66.4%a

61.6%b

52.8%c

41.4%d

 Long-term care institutions

41.4%

30.7%a

37.5%b

45.2%c

54.4%d

Type of home visite

 Planned

69.1%

68.6%a

66.4%a

66.3%a

75.9%b

 Requested

30%

30.7%

33.4%a

33.2%a

21.6%b

  1. Note: Pairwise regional comparisons with the urban region (> 50,000) were depicted with: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
  2. ePairwise regional comparisons, in which each subscript letter denotes a subset of intervention categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level
  3. fNot all totals add up to 100% because not all respondents answered every question
  4. gOther pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between: rural and semi-urban region (p < 0.05)
  5. hOther pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between: rural and semi-rural region (p < 0.05); rural and semi-urban region (p < 0.001); semi-rural regions and semi-urban region (p < 0.001)
  6. iLiving (alone or with family or partner) in own apartment