Choice of formal and informal care among community-dwelling older people with or without dementia under a long-term care insurance pilot program in China

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Australasian Journal on Ageing Pub Date : 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1111/ajag.13277
Cheng Shi, Wing-kit Chan, Jianwei Yang
{"title":"Choice of formal and informal care among community-dwelling older people with or without dementia under a long-term care insurance pilot program in China","authors":"Cheng Shi,&nbsp;Wing-kit Chan,&nbsp;Jianwei Yang","doi":"10.1111/ajag.13277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study examines the use of publicly funded formal and informal care among community-dwelling long-term care insurance (LTCI) beneficiaries in China and how dementia differentiates the choice of care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Using administrative data from a LTCI pilot scheme in Guangzhou (<i>n</i> = 2043), we conducted a multinomial logistic regression to examine the association between dementia and the choice of family members (informal unpaid care), domestic helpers (informal paid care) and care workers (formal care), controlling for demographics, living environment and intensity of paid care hours.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Most LTCI beneficiaries chose a family member (65%), followed by a domestic helper (21%) and a care worker (14%). After controlling for covariates, LTCI beneficiaries with dementia were more likely than their counterparts without dementia to choose care provided by a care worker (RRR: 1.73) or a living-in helper (RRR: 1.43) than a family member.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>A preference for informal care was observed among LTCI beneficiaries in China. Those with dementia were more likely than those without dementia to use care provided by non-family caregivers. The pilot scheme findings provide further insight into care recipients' preferences for service utilisation and how dementia impacts these preferences, which should be considered in future policy and service provision.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55431,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal on Ageing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal on Ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajag.13277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study examines the use of publicly funded formal and informal care among community-dwelling long-term care insurance (LTCI) beneficiaries in China and how dementia differentiates the choice of care.

Methods

Using administrative data from a LTCI pilot scheme in Guangzhou (n = 2043), we conducted a multinomial logistic regression to examine the association between dementia and the choice of family members (informal unpaid care), domestic helpers (informal paid care) and care workers (formal care), controlling for demographics, living environment and intensity of paid care hours.

Results

Most LTCI beneficiaries chose a family member (65%), followed by a domestic helper (21%) and a care worker (14%). After controlling for covariates, LTCI beneficiaries with dementia were more likely than their counterparts without dementia to choose care provided by a care worker (RRR: 1.73) or a living-in helper (RRR: 1.43) than a family member.

Conclusions

A preference for informal care was observed among LTCI beneficiaries in China. Those with dementia were more likely than those without dementia to use care provided by non-family caregivers. The pilot scheme findings provide further insight into care recipients' preferences for service utilisation and how dementia impacts these preferences, which should be considered in future policy and service provision.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国长期护理保险试点项目中患有或未患有痴呆症的社区老年人对正规和非正规护理的选择。
目的:本研究探讨了中国社区长期护理保险(LTCI)受益人使用政府资助的正规和非正规护理服务的情况,以及老年痴呆症对护理服务选择的影响:本研究探讨了中国社区长期护理保险(LTCI)受益人使用政府资助的正规和非正规护理的情况,以及痴呆症对护理选择的影响:利用广州市一项长期护理保险试点计划的行政数据(n = 2043),我们进行了多项式逻辑回归,研究了痴呆症与选择家庭成员(非正式无偿护理)、家政服务员(非正式有偿护理)和护理人员(正式护理)之间的关系,并对人口统计学、生活环境和有偿护理时间强度进行了控制:大多数长期护理保险受益人选择了家庭成员(65%),其次是家庭帮工(21%)和护工(14%)。在控制了协变量后,患有痴呆症的长期护理保险受益人比没有痴呆症的受益人更有可能选择护理人员(RRR:1.73)或住家帮工(RRR:1.43)提供的护理,而不是家庭成员:结论:中国的长期护理保险受益人偏好非正式护理。结论:中国的长期护理保险受益人更倾向于非正规护理,痴呆症患者比非痴呆症患者更倾向于使用非家庭护理人员提供的护理。试点计划的研究结果让我们进一步了解了护理对象对服务使用的偏好,以及痴呆症对这些偏好的影响,这些都应在未来的政策和服务提供中加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Australasian Journal on Ageing
Australasian Journal on Ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
114
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australasian Journal on Ageing is a peer reviewed journal, which publishes original work in any area of gerontology and geriatric medicine. It welcomes international submissions, particularly from authors in the Asia Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
Prescribing patterns in people living with dementia in the community: A cross-sectional study. The prevalence of falls and associated factors in older adults of the Torres Strait. Engaging under-represented oldest old in research: An approach for inclusive recruitment. Frailty in general medicine patients receiving geriatric medicine liaison services is predictive of adverse outcomes. Associations between dual-task walking and cognitive impairment in people attending a cognitive diagnostic clinic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1