Substitution of Formal and Informal Home Care Service Use and Nursing Home Service Use: Health Outcomes, Decision-Making Preferences, and Implications for a Public Health Policy
The purposes of this study are: (1) to empirically identify decision-making preferences of long-term health-care use, especially informal and formal home care (FHC) service use; (2) to evaluate outcomes vs. costs based on substitutability of informal and FHC service use; and (3) to investigate health outcome disparity based on substitutability.
The methods of ordinary least squares, a logit model, and a bivariate probit model are used by controlling for socioeconomic, demographic, and physical/mental health factors to investigate outcomes and costs based substitutability of informal and formal health-care use. The data come from the 2013 Japanese Study of Aging and Retirement (JSTAR), which is designed by Keizai-Sangyo Kenkyu-jo, Hitotsubashi University, and the University of Tokyo. The JSTAR is a globally comparable data survey of the elderly.
There exists a complement relationship between the informal home care (IHC) and community-based FHC services, and the elasticity's ranges from 0.18 to 0.22. These are reasonable results, which show that unobservable factors are positively related to IHC and community-based FHC, but negatively related to nursing home (NH) services based on our bivariate probit model. Regarding health-care outcome efficiency issue, the IHC is the best one among three types of elderly care: IHC, community-based FHC, and NH services. Health improvement/outcome of elderly with the IHC is heavier concentrated on IHC services than the elderly care services by community-based FHC and NH care services.
Policy makers need to address a diversity of health outcomes and efficiency of services based on providing services to elderly through resource allocation to the different types of long-term care. A provision of partial or full compensation for elderly care at home is recommendable and a viable option to improve their quality of lives.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,959,314
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,091
of 10,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,415
of 438,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#55
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
