Table 1. Baseline Characteristics According to Family Composition (n = 113).

From: Residents in a Remote Island Having Family Members in Distant Areas Showed Higher Preference for Place of End-of-Life Care: The Ajishima Study

Total Family composition p-valuea
In+/Out+ In+/Out− In−/Out+
n = 113 n = 65 n = 9 n = 39
Preference to be transferred and admitted outside the island at end-of-life, n (%) 0.079
 Yes 34 (30.1) 21 (32.3) 2 (22.2) 11 (28.2)
 No 48 (42.5) 24 (36.9) 2 (22.2) 22 (56.4)
 Have Not decided 31 (27.4) 20 (30.8) 5 (55.6) 6 (15.4)
Ever involved in ACP, n (%) 0.034
 Yes 82 (72.6) 45 (69.2) 4 (44.4) 33 (84.6)
 No 31 (27.4) 20 (30.8) 5 (55.6) 6 (15.4)
Gender, n (%) 0.005
 Female 59 (52.2) 29 (44.6) 2 (22.2) 28 (71.8)
 Male 54 (47.8) 36 (55.4) 7 (77.8) 11 (28.2)
Age group, n (%) 0.085
 ≤67 years 19 (16.8) 10 (15.4) 1 (11.1) 8 (20.5)
 68–75 years 24 (21.2) 14 (21.5) 4 (44.4) 6 (15.4)
 76–81 years 24 (21.2) 19 (29.2) 1 (11.1) 4 (10.3)
 82–85 years 24 (21.2) 12 (18.5) 3 (33.3) 9 (23.1)
 ≥86 years 22 (19.5) 10 (15.4) 0 (0.0) 12 (30.8)
Born in Ajishima, n (%) 0.821
 Yes 82 (72.6) 48 (73.8) 7 (77.8) 27 (69.2)
 No 31 (27.4) 17 (26.2) 2 (22.2) 12 (30.8)
Self-Reported Health, n (%) 0.102
 Very good 8 (7.1) 2 (3.1) 1 (11.1) 5 (12.8)
 Good 76 (67.3) 43 (66.2) 7 (77.8) 26 (66.7)
 Bad 23 (20.4) 18 (27.7) 1 (11.1) 4 (10.3)
 Very Bad 6 (5.3) 2 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 4 (10.3)
Table 2. The Prevalence Ratio (PR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of Having Preferred Place for End-of-Life Care According to Family Composition (n = 113).

From: Residents in a Remote Island Having Family Members in Distant Areas Showed Higher Preference for Place of End-of-Life Care: The Ajishima Study

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
PR (95% CI) PR (95% CI) PR (95% CI)
Family composition
 In+/Out+ (reference) (reference) (reference)
 In+/Out− 0.64 (0.30, 1.36) 0.66 (0.31, 1.41) 0.66 (0.33, 1.36)
 In−/Out+ 1.22 (0.99, 1.51) 1.22 (0.98, 1.51) 1.26 (1.01, 1.56)
Gender
 Male (reference) (reference)
 Female 0.99 (0.78, 1.26) 1.04 (0.81, 1.33)
Age group
 ≤67 years (reference) (reference)
 68–75 years 1.16 (0.70, 1.93) 1.18 (0.72, 1.95)
 76–81 years 1.36 (0.87, 2.13) 1.43 (0.92, 2.21)
 82–85 years 1.42 (0.91, 2.22) 1.44 (0.92, 2.24)
 ≥86 years 1.44 (0.93, 2.23) 1.30 (0.83, 2.02)
Born in Ajishima
 Yes (reference)
 No 0.71 (0.52, 0.96)
Self-Reported Health
 Healthy (reference)
 Unhealthy 1.14 (0.89, 1.46)
Table 3. The Prevalence Ratio (PR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of Having Preferred Place for End-of-Life Care According to Family Composition Stratified by Gender and Birthplace.

From: Residents in a Remote Island Having Family Members in Distant Areas Showed Higher Preference for Place of End-of-Life Care: The Ajishima Study

Family composition p for interaction
In+/Out+ In+/Out− In−/Out+
Gender1 0.890
 Women (n = 59)
  Have ACP, n (%) 22 (75.9) 1 (50.0) 23 (82.1)
  PR (95% CI)2 (reference) 0.70 (0.21, 2.31) 1.13 (0.85, 1.52)
 Men (n = 54)
  Have ACP, n (%) 23 (63.9) 3 (42.9) 10 (90.9)
  PR (95% CI)2 (reference) 0.76 (0.33, 1.75) 1.77 (1.22, 2.57)
Born in Ajishima2 0.284
 Yes (n = 82)
  Have ACP, n (%) 35 (72.9) 4 (57.1) 25 (92.6)
  PR (95% CI)4 (reference) 0.82 (0.42, 1.59) 1.26 (1.02, 1.56)
 No (n = 31)
  Have ACP, n (%) 10 (58.8) 0 (0) 8 (66.7)
  PR (95% CI)4 (reference) NA 1.36 (0.65, 2.85)
PAGE TOP