Skip to main content
. 2014 Sep 27;12(2):95–104. doi: 10.1007/s10433-014-0322-z

Table 1.

Characteristics of the study population and comparison of the four groups based on use of LTC models (n = 592)

Variables All participants (n = 592) 1. Institutional care (n = 61)(10.3 %) 2. Community/home-based care (n = 27) (4.6 %) 3. Migrant care worker (n = 74) (12.5 %) 4. Family care
(n = 430) (72.6 %)
χ2
(p-value)
Zb
(p-value)
Post hoc testc
Age (M/SD) (range) 78.1/7.0
(65–102)
79.1/6.7
(65–94)
76.5/7.7
(65–94)
80.4/6.5
(66–102)
77.0/7.0
(65–98)
18.21*** 1 > 4*,
2 < 3*,
3 > 4***
Sex N (%)
 Male 234 (39.5) 29 (47.5) 9 (33.3) 30 (40.5) 166 (38.6) 2.26
 Female 358 (60.5) 32 (52.5) 18 (66.7) 44 (59.5) 264 (61.4)
Education (M/SD) (range) 3.3/4.2
(0–16)
2.9/3.9
(0–16)
2.4/3.6
(0–12)
4.7/5.3
(0–16)
3.1/4.1
(0–16)
5.46
Marriage N(%)
 With spouse/partner 258 (43.6) 1 (1.6) 13 (48.1) 30 (40.5) 214 (49.8) 50.82***
 Single 334 (56.4) 60 (98.4) 14 (51.9) 44 (59.5) 216 (50.2)
Residence location (urbanisation) (M/SD) (range) 4.7/1.7
(1–7)
5.1/1.7
(1–7)
3.9/1.7
(1–7)
4.9/1.8
(1–7)
4.6/1.7
(1–7)
11.99** 1 > 2**,
1 > 4*,
2 < 3**,
2 < 4*
Family monthly income
 Below NT$ 30,000 354(59.8) 36(59.0) 18(66.7) 37(50.0) 263(61.2) 16.97*
 NT$30,000 ~ 50,000 124(20.9) 16(26.2) 5(18.5) 13(17.6) 90(20.9)
 NT$50,000 ~ 70,000 58(9.8) 4(6.6) 4(14.8) 9(12.2) 41(9.5)
 Beyond NT$70,000 56(9.5) 5(8.2) 0(0.0) 15(20.3) 36(8.4)
Self-reported healtha 1.4/0.7
(1–5)
1.2/0.4
(1–3)
1.2/0.5
(1–3)
1.3/0.6
(1–4)
1.5/0.8
(1–5)
24.23*** 1 < 4***,
2 < 4*,
3 < 4**
ADL (M/SD) (range) 12.4/6.7
(0–18)
3.5/5.2
(0–18)
7.6/6.9
(0–18)
8.6/6.6
(0–18)
14.7/5.2
(0–18)
166.46*** 1 < 2*,
1 < 3***
1 < 4***
2 < 4***
3 < 4***
IADL(M/SD) (range) 10.3/7.9
(0–24)
2.0/4.2
(0-17)
5.5/6.4
(0-19)
5.0/6.2
(2–22)
12.8/7.2
(0–24)
153.92*** 1 < 2**
1 < 3***,
1 < 4***
2 < 4***
3 < 4***
 Family networks M/SD (range) 6.5/2.5
(0–15)
4.4/1.9
(0–7)
6.2/2.2
(2–10)
7.2/2.3
(1–15)
6.6/2.6
(0–15)
58.95*** 1 < 2***
1 < 3***
1 < 4***
3 < 4*
 Social interaction M/SD (range) 3.7/2.9
(0–10)
1.9/2.7
(0–10)
3.4/2.3
(0–9)
3.1/2.7
(0–10)
4.0/2.9
(0–10)
44.81*** 1 < 2***
1 < 3***
1 < 4***
3 < 4**

a 1 = bad, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent; b Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance; c Values are significant in the Mann–Whitney U-test at p < 0.05

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001