以家庭为基础的护理结果:护理提供者重要吗?

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2025-04-28 DOI:10.1002/hec.4972
Norma B Coe, Chuxuan Sun, Courtney H Van Houtven, Anirban Basu, R Tamara Konetzka
{"title":"以家庭为基础的护理结果:护理提供者重要吗?","authors":"Norma B Coe, Chuxuan Sun, Courtney H Van Houtven, Anirban Basu, R Tamara Konetzka","doi":"10.1002/hec.4972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Long-term services in the home are predominately provided by family or friends, with a growing proportion of individuals receiving formal care, or paid care by a professional, or a combination of both. However, the relative benefits to the care recipient of who provides the care are largely unknown. A person's use of formal and family care is affected by factors that also may affect their outcomes, complicating the estimation of any causal relationship. Using the 2002-2018 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we examine three types of home-based care combinations: family only, formal only, and both formal and family care. We use an instrumental variables strategy, using family structure as instruments for both formal care and the combination of formal and family care, to estimate the plausibly causal impact of the care provider on self-reported mental and physical health outcomes. We find that, once the endogeneity of the care provider is accounted for, having both formal and family care leads to better self-rated health, mobility and lower depression compared to people receiving family care only. Receiving formal care only does not affect care recipient outcomes compared to receiving family care only. These results are robust to several sensitivity analyses, including different instrument specifications, subsamples of care recipients that do not have a spouse/partner, among women care recipients, and changing the timing of the measurement of the outcomes. These findings are important to consider as we strive to best meet the growing demand for person-centered, high-quality long-term care in the least restrictive setting possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Home-Based Care Outcomes: Does the Care Provider Matter?\",\"authors\":\"Norma B Coe, Chuxuan Sun, Courtney H Van Houtven, Anirban Basu, R Tamara Konetzka\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hec.4972\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Long-term services in the home are predominately provided by family or friends, with a growing proportion of individuals receiving formal care, or paid care by a professional, or a combination of both. However, the relative benefits to the care recipient of who provides the care are largely unknown. A person's use of formal and family care is affected by factors that also may affect their outcomes, complicating the estimation of any causal relationship. Using the 2002-2018 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we examine three types of home-based care combinations: family only, formal only, and both formal and family care. We use an instrumental variables strategy, using family structure as instruments for both formal care and the combination of formal and family care, to estimate the plausibly causal impact of the care provider on self-reported mental and physical health outcomes. We find that, once the endogeneity of the care provider is accounted for, having both formal and family care leads to better self-rated health, mobility and lower depression compared to people receiving family care only. Receiving formal care only does not affect care recipient outcomes compared to receiving family care only. These results are robust to several sensitivity analyses, including different instrument specifications, subsamples of care recipients that do not have a spouse/partner, among women care recipients, and changing the timing of the measurement of the outcomes. These findings are important to consider as we strive to best meet the growing demand for person-centered, high-quality long-term care in the least restrictive setting possible.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4972\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4972","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

家庭中的长期服务主要由家人或朋友提供,越来越多的个人接受正规护理,或由专业人员提供有偿护理,或两者兼而有之。然而,谁提供照顾对受照顾者的相对好处在很大程度上是未知的。一个人对正规和家庭护理的使用受到一些因素的影响,这些因素也可能影响其结果,使任何因果关系的估计复杂化。利用2002-2018年健康与退休研究(HRS),我们研究了三种类型的家庭护理组合:仅家庭护理、仅正式护理以及正式和家庭护理。我们使用工具变量策略,使用家庭结构作为正式护理和正式和家庭护理组合的工具,以估计护理提供者对自我报告的心理和身体健康结果的合理因果影响。我们发现,一旦考虑到护理提供者的内质性,与只接受家庭护理的人相比,同时接受正式和家庭护理的人会获得更好的自评健康、流动性和更低的抑郁程度。与仅接受家庭护理相比,仅接受正规护理不会影响护理接受者的结果。这些结果对几个敏感性分析是稳健的,包括不同的工具规格,没有配偶/伴侣的护理接受者的子样本,女性护理接受者,以及改变结果测量的时间。这些发现是重要的考虑,因为我们努力最好地满足日益增长的需求,以人为本,高质量的长期护理,在尽可能少的限制设置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Home-Based Care Outcomes: Does the Care Provider Matter?

Long-term services in the home are predominately provided by family or friends, with a growing proportion of individuals receiving formal care, or paid care by a professional, or a combination of both. However, the relative benefits to the care recipient of who provides the care are largely unknown. A person's use of formal and family care is affected by factors that also may affect their outcomes, complicating the estimation of any causal relationship. Using the 2002-2018 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we examine three types of home-based care combinations: family only, formal only, and both formal and family care. We use an instrumental variables strategy, using family structure as instruments for both formal care and the combination of formal and family care, to estimate the plausibly causal impact of the care provider on self-reported mental and physical health outcomes. We find that, once the endogeneity of the care provider is accounted for, having both formal and family care leads to better self-rated health, mobility and lower depression compared to people receiving family care only. Receiving formal care only does not affect care recipient outcomes compared to receiving family care only. These results are robust to several sensitivity analyses, including different instrument specifications, subsamples of care recipients that do not have a spouse/partner, among women care recipients, and changing the timing of the measurement of the outcomes. These findings are important to consider as we strive to best meet the growing demand for person-centered, high-quality long-term care in the least restrictive setting possible.

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
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信