{"title":"[Live-in care in Germany: A qualitative content analysis of social and political discourses].","authors":"Adele Grenz, Mark Schweda, Milena von Kutzleben","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Germany, Eastern European live-in carers are filling a gap in home-based long-term care for older persons. As a care reality fraught with diverse problems, live-in care is an unregulated care format bordering between formal and informal structures and has so far received little attention from health services research. The aim of the qualitative study described here was to analyze the current discourses among stakeholders from care practice, politics, and associations, as well as the arguments contained therein regarding the status quo and future of live-in care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 22 online available documents from stakeholders, such as statements and contributions to the discussion, as well as ten expert interviews. Within the scope of a qualitative content analysis, triangulation of the two data corpora was conducted. Using a deductive-inductively developed system of categories, viewpoints and arguments were analyzed on this basis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three arguments regarding the future regulation of live-in care were identified in current socio-political discourses: 1) Maintain: professionalization of live-in care, 2) Supplement: integrating live-in care into the care mix, 3) Abolish: alternatives to the live-in care model. Despite different perspectives regarding the implementation of live-in care in the long-term care system, there is consensus that political measures must move beyond purely legal solutions. Regulation of framework conditions, mediation, and care practices is necessary.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Regarding the future design of live-in care, particular emphasis is placed on adjusted financial incentives, professionalized live-in and live-out services, as well as the organization and promotion of informal care networks and collaborations with formal providers like outpatient services as key levers. In a broader discourse on the regulation of live-in care, it should be clarified how requirements for quality-assured long-term care can be applied, taking into account the needs of care arrangements.</p>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2024.10.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In Germany, Eastern European live-in carers are filling a gap in home-based long-term care for older persons. As a care reality fraught with diverse problems, live-in care is an unregulated care format bordering between formal and informal structures and has so far received little attention from health services research. The aim of the qualitative study described here was to analyze the current discourses among stakeholders from care practice, politics, and associations, as well as the arguments contained therein regarding the status quo and future of live-in care.
Methods: We analyzed 22 online available documents from stakeholders, such as statements and contributions to the discussion, as well as ten expert interviews. Within the scope of a qualitative content analysis, triangulation of the two data corpora was conducted. Using a deductive-inductively developed system of categories, viewpoints and arguments were analyzed on this basis.
Results: Three arguments regarding the future regulation of live-in care were identified in current socio-political discourses: 1) Maintain: professionalization of live-in care, 2) Supplement: integrating live-in care into the care mix, 3) Abolish: alternatives to the live-in care model. Despite different perspectives regarding the implementation of live-in care in the long-term care system, there is consensus that political measures must move beyond purely legal solutions. Regulation of framework conditions, mediation, and care practices is necessary.
Discussion and conclusion: Regarding the future design of live-in care, particular emphasis is placed on adjusted financial incentives, professionalized live-in and live-out services, as well as the organization and promotion of informal care networks and collaborations with formal providers like outpatient services as key levers. In a broader discourse on the regulation of live-in care, it should be clarified how requirements for quality-assured long-term care can be applied, taking into account the needs of care arrangements.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
