Back

Predicting Hospice Use Among American Indian/Alaska Native Persons with End-Stage Kidney Disease

Varilek, B. M.; Longacre, L. E.; Shokoohi, F.; Shade, M. Y.; Ravipati, P.; Moradi Rekabdarkolaee, H.

2026-02-05 nursing
10.64898/2026.02.04.26345555 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAmerican Indian/Alaska Native individuals are disproportionately affected by end-stage kidney disease. Once diagnosed, treatment options include receiving a kidney transplant or starting dialysis. Disparities in treatment options are linked to social determinants of health, and in rural areas, dialysis is often the preferred treatment due to limited access to transplant. A recent nationwide analysis of survival differences showed a survival advantage after starting dialysis but also found that patients in these populations are less likely to receive hospice care before death. They face early diagnosis, leading to more years on dialysis and reduced quality of life. Using a predictive model can help identify factors that affect hospice use among patients. This study proposes a predictive model to estimate the likelihood of hospice use before death among patients who received a kidney transplant. MethodsUsing the 2022 USRDS Standard Analysis Files, adults who fit inclusion criteria were retrospectively identified. Area Deprivation Index (ADI) data, used for this analysis, includes 17 variables from US Census data, such as income, education, housing security, employment, and healthcare access, to generate the standardized ranking. This study employed regression tree, random forest, boosting, and support vector machine techniques to predict hospice use among participants. The covariates used in this study are race, IHS region, age, sex, mean ADI, comorbidities, and transplant status. Models are assessed based on their predictive performance using accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. ResultsThe random forest model outperforms others in accuracy, boosting offers the best sensitivity, and support vector machine and random forest excel in specificity. Overall, random forest and boosting are top models, with logistic regression as second-best. Logistic regression provides more interpretable results. The results, however, suggest a nonlinear relationship between covariates and the response that logistic regression might not capture. Based on both metrics, IHS region, age, and ADI are the most important features. ConclusionsIncluding measures like the ADI in predictive models highlights geographic disparities that are often overlooked and can guide interventions toward communities that have been historically underserved. Researchers and healthcare systems should improve access to hospice and palliative care for those who face these disparities.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
42.5%
2
BMC Nephrology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.6%
4
Kidney360
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
5
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
7
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
52 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
9
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
11
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
12
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
13
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.3%
15
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
16
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
17
Kidney International Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
18
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
19
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
21
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
22
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%