4.7 Article

Predictors of long-term care use - informal home care recipients versus private and public facilities residents in Poland

Journal

BMC GERIATRICS
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-023-04216-2

Keywords

Long-term care; Informal care; Poland; Andersen's behavioral model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to identify the factors that determine the use and selection of long-term care (LTC) in Poland. The results suggest that social inequalities play a role in LTC selection, while multi-morbidity has limited impact on the choice of inpatient facilities. Furthermore, the study finds noticeable differences in LTC selection determinants between women and men.
BackgroundThe population aging, together with the shrinking caring potential of families, is a major challenge for social policy in the coming years. The aim of the study is to identify the factors that determine not only the use of long-term care (LTC) but also the selection of individual types of such care in Poland.MethodsUsing unique data collected from inpatient LTC facilities in Poland and the Survey on Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) database, we estimate logistic regressions explaining the choice of LTC solution.ResultsOur results suggest that social inequalities play a role in choosing the type of LTC. Better educated people choose private institutions, while people without support network use more often social residential homes. The impact of multimorbidity on choosing different types of inpatient facilities is limited, thus the number of ADL limitations remains a better indicator of long term care utilization.ConclusionsThe study confirms that social inequalities influence decisions about the choice of LTC. However, multi-morbidity is a predictor of using LTC to a limited extent. The differences in LTC selection determinants between women and men are noticeable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available