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