title: Long-term retention of older adults in the Cardiovascular Health Study: implications for studies of the oldest old.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To describe retention according to age and visit type (clinic, home, telephone) and to determine characteristics associated with visit types for a longitudinal epidemiological study in older adults.
  
  
  METHODS
  Longitudinal cohort study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four U.S. clinical sites.
  
  
  METHODS
  Five thousand eight hundred eighty-eight Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) participants aged 65 to 100 at 1989/90 or 1992/93 enrollment (58.6% female; 15.7% black). CHS participants were contacted every 6 months, with annual assessments through 1999 and in 2005/06 for the All Stars Study visit of the CHS cohort (aged 77-102; 66.5% female; 16.6% black).
  
  
  METHODS
  All annual contacts through 1999 (n=43,772) and for the 2005/06 visit (n=1,942).
  
  
  RESULTS
  CHS had 43,772 total participant contacts from 1989 to 1999: 34,582 clinic visits (79.0%), 2,238 refusals (5.1%), 4,401 telephone visits (10.1%), 1,811 home visits (4.1%), and 740 other types (1.7%). In 2005/06, the All Stars participants of the CHS cohort had 36.6% clinic, 22.3% home, and 41.1% telephone visits. Compared with participants aged 65 to 69, odds ratios of not attending a CHS clinic visit were 1.82 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.54-2.13), 2.94 (95% CI=2.45-3.57), 4.55 (95% CI=3.70-5.56), and 9.09 (95% CI=7.69-11.11) for those aged 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older, respectively, in sex-adjusted regression. In multivariable regression, participants with a 2005/06 clinic visit were younger, more likely to be male and in good health, and had had better cognitive and physical function 7 years earlier than participants with other visit types. Participants with home, telephone, and missing visits were similar on characteristics measured 7 years earlier.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Offering home, telephone, and proxy visits are essential to optimizing follow-up of aging cohorts. Home visits increased in-person retention from 36.5% to 58.8% and diversified the cohort with respect to age, health, and physical functioning.
authors.affiliation: Center for Aging and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Room 515, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA. strotmeyere@edc.pitt.edu
authors.forename: Elsa S
authors.initials: ES
authors.lastname: Strotmeyer
authors.forename: Alice M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Arnold
authors.forename: Robert M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Boudreau
authors.forename: Diane G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Ives
authors.forename: Mary
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Cushman
authors.forename: John A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Robbins
authors.forename: Tamara B
authors.initials: TB
authors.lastname: Harris
authors.forename: Anne B
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Newman
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D000554:Ambulatory Care Facilities / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000453:epidemiology*; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D016021:Epidemiologic Studies; D005260:Female; D015577:Geriatric Assessment; D006792:House Calls / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008297:Male; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D010352:Patient Dropouts / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D018579:Patient Selection; D035842:Research Subjects / Q000600:supply & distribution; D013689:Telephone / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology
references.citation: Psychol Med. 1989 Nov;19(4):1015-22
references.pmid: 2594878
references.citation: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Dec;51(12):1740-7
references.pmid: 14687352
references.citation: Neuroepidemiology. 2009;33(1):55-65
references.pmid: 19407461
references.citation: Ann Epidemiol. 1993 Jul;3(4):358-66
references.pmid: 8275211
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Nov;55(11):1119-25
references.pmid: 12507676
references.citation: J Clin Psychiatry. 1987 Aug;48(8):314-8
references.pmid: 3611032
references.citation: J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Apr;20(4):596-603
references.pmid: 15765178
references.citation: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006 Oct;61(10):1059-64
references.pmid: 17077199
references.citation: Ann Epidemiol. 1991 Feb;1(3):263-76
references.pmid: 1669507
references.citation: J Clin Psychol. 1986 Jan;42(1):28-33
references.pmid: 3950011
references.citation: Psychol Med. 1995 Nov;25(6):1211-9
references.pmid: 8637951
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2007 Jun;30(6):1507-12
references.pmid: 17363749
references.citation: Ann Epidemiol. 1995 Jul;5(4):278-85
references.pmid: 8520709
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jan 9;166(1):71-8
references.pmid: 16401813
references.citation: Ann Epidemiol. 1995 Jul;5(4):270-7
references.pmid: 8520708
references.citation: Stroke. 2005 Jan;36(1):56-61
references.pmid: 15569873
references.citation: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Mar;57(3):432-40
references.pmid: 19187412
references.citation: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001 Jan;163(1):61-8
references.pmid: 11208627
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):1998-2004
references.pmid: 15671096
references.citation: JAMA. 2007 Dec 19;298(23):2761-7
references.pmid: 18165669
references.citation: J Gerontol. 1978 Mar;33(2):232-8
references.pmid: 637915
references.citation: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Feb;53(2):183-9
references.pmid: 15673339