欧洲老年人长期护理的异质性:个体和系统效应之间的差异

P. Tinios, Zafiris Valvis, Thomas Georgiadis
{"title":"欧洲老年人长期护理的异质性:个体和系统效应之间的差异","authors":"P. Tinios, Zafiris Valvis, Thomas Georgiadis","doi":"10.3390/jal2020014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current paper uses comparable data to present an overview of home-based long-term care (LTC) for persons over 65 years of age in Europe. It aims to provide new insights to aid discussions on LTC policy convergence in three areas: the need for services, the extent to which these needs are met and the means employed to do so. It uses data from wave 6 (2015) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Four summary indicators are charted: (i) the care need: how many people need care; (ii) the care gap: the extent to which stated needs remain unmet; (iii) the care mix: how overall provision is divided into formal, informal or a mix of both; and (iv) care satisfaction based on stated preferences by recipients. Heterogeneity at individual level is explained by probit analyses, examining how individual factors (age, severity of need, gender, social networks, prosperity and others) combine with country group and country effects. Scatter plots are used to relate differences among countries to systemic variables, such as public expenditures. The key conclusions are that: (i) Once needs are defined in comparable terms, there remains a surprisingly large number of people across Europe whose needs are not addressed at all, what we call the care gap, especially among the younger group aged 65–80; this is evident everywhere and is not limited to any one type of system or group of countries; (ii) formal and informal care are both significant for the stability of an LTC provision system and for the well-being of care recipients; and (iii) recipients of care are especially sceptical about formal care, as they reward principally informal carers with whom they have personal relationships. The overwhelming finding is that the heterogeneity defies easy generalisations, whether these relate to individual characteristics or systemic effects. This (unexplained) heterogeneity is a challenge for researchers to explain, but it could also represent an untapped resource for policymakers to exploit.","PeriodicalId":73588,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ageing and longevity","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heterogeneity in Long-Term Care for Older Adults in Europe: Between Individual and Systemic Effects\",\"authors\":\"P. Tinios, Zafiris Valvis, Thomas Georgiadis\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jal2020014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current paper uses comparable data to present an overview of home-based long-term care (LTC) for persons over 65 years of age in Europe. It aims to provide new insights to aid discussions on LTC policy convergence in three areas: the need for services, the extent to which these needs are met and the means employed to do so. It uses data from wave 6 (2015) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Four summary indicators are charted: (i) the care need: how many people need care; (ii) the care gap: the extent to which stated needs remain unmet; (iii) the care mix: how overall provision is divided into formal, informal or a mix of both; and (iv) care satisfaction based on stated preferences by recipients. Heterogeneity at individual level is explained by probit analyses, examining how individual factors (age, severity of need, gender, social networks, prosperity and others) combine with country group and country effects. Scatter plots are used to relate differences among countries to systemic variables, such as public expenditures. The key conclusions are that: (i) Once needs are defined in comparable terms, there remains a surprisingly large number of people across Europe whose needs are not addressed at all, what we call the care gap, especially among the younger group aged 65–80; this is evident everywhere and is not limited to any one type of system or group of countries; (ii) formal and informal care are both significant for the stability of an LTC provision system and for the well-being of care recipients; and (iii) recipients of care are especially sceptical about formal care, as they reward principally informal carers with whom they have personal relationships. The overwhelming finding is that the heterogeneity defies easy generalisations, whether these relate to individual characteristics or systemic effects. This (unexplained) heterogeneity is a challenge for researchers to explain, but it could also represent an untapped resource for policymakers to exploit.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of ageing and longevity\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of ageing and longevity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jal2020014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of ageing and longevity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jal2020014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目前的论文使用可比数据概述了欧洲65岁以上人群的家庭长期护理(LTC)。它旨在提供新的见解,以帮助讨论长期护理政策在三个领域的趋同:服务需求、满足这些需求的程度以及实现这些需求的手段。它使用了欧洲健康、老龄化和退休调查(SHARE)第6波(2015)的数据。绘制了四个汇总指标:(i)护理需求:有多少人需要护理;(ii)护理差距:所述需求仍未得到满足的程度;(iii)护理组合:如何将整体服务分为正式、非正式或两者混合;以及(iv)基于接受者所述偏好的护理满意度。个人层面的异质性通过概率分析来解释,该分析考察了个人因素(年龄、需求严重程度、性别、社会网络、繁荣等)如何与国家群体和国家效应相结合。散点图用于将国家之间的差异与公共支出等系统变量联系起来。关键结论是:(i)一旦用可比的术语定义了需求,整个欧洲仍有大量的人的需求根本没有得到解决,这就是我们所说的护理差距,尤其是在65-80岁的年轻群体中;这一点在任何地方都很明显,并不局限于任何一种类型的体系或国家集团;(ii)正式和非正式护理对长期护理提供系统的稳定性和护理对象的福祉都很重要;以及(iii)接受护理的人对正式护理尤其持怀疑态度,因为他们主要奖励与他们有私人关系的非正式护理人员。压倒性的发现是,无论是与个体特征还是系统效应有关,异质性都难以简单概括。这种(无法解释的)异质性对研究人员来说是一个解释的挑战,但它也可能是政策制定者可以利用的未开发资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Heterogeneity in Long-Term Care for Older Adults in Europe: Between Individual and Systemic Effects
The current paper uses comparable data to present an overview of home-based long-term care (LTC) for persons over 65 years of age in Europe. It aims to provide new insights to aid discussions on LTC policy convergence in three areas: the need for services, the extent to which these needs are met and the means employed to do so. It uses data from wave 6 (2015) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Four summary indicators are charted: (i) the care need: how many people need care; (ii) the care gap: the extent to which stated needs remain unmet; (iii) the care mix: how overall provision is divided into formal, informal or a mix of both; and (iv) care satisfaction based on stated preferences by recipients. Heterogeneity at individual level is explained by probit analyses, examining how individual factors (age, severity of need, gender, social networks, prosperity and others) combine with country group and country effects. Scatter plots are used to relate differences among countries to systemic variables, such as public expenditures. The key conclusions are that: (i) Once needs are defined in comparable terms, there remains a surprisingly large number of people across Europe whose needs are not addressed at all, what we call the care gap, especially among the younger group aged 65–80; this is evident everywhere and is not limited to any one type of system or group of countries; (ii) formal and informal care are both significant for the stability of an LTC provision system and for the well-being of care recipients; and (iii) recipients of care are especially sceptical about formal care, as they reward principally informal carers with whom they have personal relationships. The overwhelming finding is that the heterogeneity defies easy generalisations, whether these relate to individual characteristics or systemic effects. This (unexplained) heterogeneity is a challenge for researchers to explain, but it could also represent an untapped resource for policymakers to exploit.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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