长期照护中熟悉与陌生化的指标:宏观指标的理论概述与介绍

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of European Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-08-03 DOI:10.1177/09589287221115669
E. Verbakel, K. Glaser, Yasmina Amzour, M. Brandt, M. B. V. van Groenou
{"title":"长期照护中熟悉与陌生化的指标:宏观指标的理论概述与介绍","authors":"E. Verbakel, K. Glaser, Yasmina Amzour, M. Brandt, M. B. V. van Groenou","doi":"10.1177/09589287221115669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many countries have been working on revising their long-term care (LTC) policies to meet the increasing demand for care. Generally, little attention is paid to the potential (unintended) consequences of LTC policies for inequality among care users or informal caregivers. Saraceno previously explicitly argued that differences in care use and provision depend on the type of LTC policy, and that policies with contrasting consequences for inequality can be implemented at the same time. We call upon future research to empirically test the impact of different types of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care. To stimulate and facilitate such research, our aims are to outline theoretical arguments for the differential impact of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care and to create macro-level indicators for different types of supportive LTC policies in European countries over time. Our study’s research question is: Can we find and capture different dimensions of LTC policies in macro-level indicators that are comparable over countries and time? In particular, we focus on supported familialism (for example, informal caregiver support), supported defamilialization through the market (for example, in-cash benefits for care users), and defamilialization through public provision (for example, availability of beds in residential care). Besides a summary of the literature on LTC policies and how they may affect socio-economic inequalities in care, we outline our search process for macro-level LTC indicators and present descriptive information on the different types of LTC policies and their correlations. We discuss the difficulties that arise when translating theoretical insights about different types of LTC policies into high-quality measures for many countries and time points.","PeriodicalId":47919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indicators of familialism and defamilialization in long-term care: A theoretical overview and introduction of macro-level indicators\",\"authors\":\"E. Verbakel, K. Glaser, Yasmina Amzour, M. Brandt, M. B. V. van Groenou\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09589287221115669\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many countries have been working on revising their long-term care (LTC) policies to meet the increasing demand for care. Generally, little attention is paid to the potential (unintended) consequences of LTC policies for inequality among care users or informal caregivers. Saraceno previously explicitly argued that differences in care use and provision depend on the type of LTC policy, and that policies with contrasting consequences for inequality can be implemented at the same time. We call upon future research to empirically test the impact of different types of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care. To stimulate and facilitate such research, our aims are to outline theoretical arguments for the differential impact of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care and to create macro-level indicators for different types of supportive LTC policies in European countries over time. Our study’s research question is: Can we find and capture different dimensions of LTC policies in macro-level indicators that are comparable over countries and time? In particular, we focus on supported familialism (for example, informal caregiver support), supported defamilialization through the market (for example, in-cash benefits for care users), and defamilialization through public provision (for example, availability of beds in residential care). Besides a summary of the literature on LTC policies and how they may affect socio-economic inequalities in care, we outline our search process for macro-level LTC indicators and present descriptive information on the different types of LTC policies and their correlations. We discuss the difficulties that arise when translating theoretical insights about different types of LTC policies into high-quality measures for many countries and time points.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221115669\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221115669","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

许多国家一直在努力修订其长期护理政策,以满足日益增长的护理需求。一般来说,LTC政策对照护使用者或非正式照护者之间不平等的潜在(意想不到的)后果很少受到关注。Saraceno之前明确指出,护理使用和提供的差异取决于长期服务中心政策的类型,并且可以同时实施对不平等产生不同后果的政策。我们呼吁未来的研究对不同类型的长期服务支付政策对护理中社会经济不平等的影响进行实证检验。为了刺激和促进这类研究,我们的目标是概述长期护理服务政策对护理中社会经济不平等的不同影响的理论论据,并为欧洲国家不同类型的支持性长期护理服务政策创建宏观层面的指标。我们的研究问题是:我们能否在不同国家和时间的宏观层面指标中找到并捕捉到LTC政策的不同维度?我们特别关注支持的熟悉性(例如,非正式照顾者支持),通过市场支持的陌生性(例如,护理使用者的现金福利),以及通过公共提供的陌生性(例如,住宿护理中的床位可用性)。除了总结LTC政策及其如何影响医疗中的社会经济不平等的文献外,我们还概述了宏观层面LTC指标的搜索过程,并提供了不同类型LTC政策及其相关性的描述性信息。我们讨论了在将关于不同类型的LTC政策的理论见解转化为适用于许多国家和时间点的高质量措施时出现的困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Indicators of familialism and defamilialization in long-term care: A theoretical overview and introduction of macro-level indicators
Many countries have been working on revising their long-term care (LTC) policies to meet the increasing demand for care. Generally, little attention is paid to the potential (unintended) consequences of LTC policies for inequality among care users or informal caregivers. Saraceno previously explicitly argued that differences in care use and provision depend on the type of LTC policy, and that policies with contrasting consequences for inequality can be implemented at the same time. We call upon future research to empirically test the impact of different types of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care. To stimulate and facilitate such research, our aims are to outline theoretical arguments for the differential impact of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care and to create macro-level indicators for different types of supportive LTC policies in European countries over time. Our study’s research question is: Can we find and capture different dimensions of LTC policies in macro-level indicators that are comparable over countries and time? In particular, we focus on supported familialism (for example, informal caregiver support), supported defamilialization through the market (for example, in-cash benefits for care users), and defamilialization through public provision (for example, availability of beds in residential care). Besides a summary of the literature on LTC policies and how they may affect socio-economic inequalities in care, we outline our search process for macro-level LTC indicators and present descriptive information on the different types of LTC policies and their correlations. We discuss the difficulties that arise when translating theoretical insights about different types of LTC policies into high-quality measures for many countries and time points.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of European Social Policy publishes articles on all aspects of social policy in Europe. Papers should make a contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field, and we particularly welcome scholarly papers which integrate innovative theoretical insights and rigorous empirical analysis, as well as those which use or develop new methodological approaches. The Journal is interdisciplinary in scope and both social policy and Europe are conceptualized broadly. Articles may address multi-level policy making in the European Union and elsewhere; provide cross-national comparative studies; and include comparisons with areas outside Europe.
期刊最新文献
What works? Researching participants’ experiences of a social policy RCT through qualitative interviews Cross-class solidarity in times of crisis: the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on support for redistribution COVID-19 hits care homes: A cross-national study of mortality rates Targeted transfers, a left-wing policy? The impact of left-wing governments and corporatism on transfers to low-income families (1982–2019) Help or harm? Examining the effects of active labour market programmes on young adults’ employment quality and the role of social origin
×
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