Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Jan 5;70(4):1095–1105. doi: 10.1111/jgs.17632

TABLE 2.

Distribution of BFS outcome and tested process of care mediators by veteran race/ethnicity

Total sample, n = 17,911 Non-Hispanic White, n = 13,792 Non-Hispanic Black, n = 3445 Hispanic, n = 674 p value
Outcome
 Poor/fair overall BFS rating, n (%) 1824 (10.2) 1241 (9.0) 490 (14.2) 93 (13.8) <0.001
Tested mediators
EOL care processes
 Potentially burdensome transition, n (%) 6438 (35.9) 4989 (36.2) 1189 (34.5) 260 (38.6) 0.07
 High-intensity EOL treatment, n (%) 3459 (19.3) 2512 (18.2) 771 (22.4) 176 (26.1) <0.001
BFS factors
 Care and Communication, mean ± SD 13.0 ± 2.8 13.0 ± 2.7 12.8 ± 3.0 12.9 ± 2.9 <0.001
  Score ≥ median (14), n (%) 10,568 (59.0) 8195 (59.4) 1970 (57.2) 403 (59.8) 0.05
 Emotional and Spiritual Support, mean ± SD 6.8 ± 2.6 7.0 ± 2.5 6.3 ± 2.8 6.6 ± 2.8 <0.001
  Score ≥ median (8), % 9602 (53.6) 7743 (56.1) 1510 (43.8) 349 (51.8) <0.001
 Death Benefits, mean ± SD 1.7 ± 1.2 1.8 ± 1.1 1.3 ± 1.2 1.4 ± 1.2 <0.001
  Score ≥ median (2), % 9725 (54.3) 7981 (57.9) 1441 (41.8) 303 (45.0) <0.001

Note: p values determined using χ2 for categorical variables and ANOVA for continuous variables. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Theoretical range for BFS subscales: Care and Communication (0–15); Emotional and Spiritual Support (0–9), and Benefits (0–3).

Abbreviation: EOL, end-of-life.