Table 2.
Included studies using other stated preference techniques (n = 32)
| Study1 | Country | Population | Study objective | Method, type of measurement | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (53) Block 3 | USA | 255 nursing home residents | To examine the change in nursing home residents’ importance ratings of everyday living preferences over time | Rating 72 preferences from 5 domains: 1. Self-dominion/autonomy in care, 2. Enlisting others in care, 3. Leisure and diversionary activities, 4. Social contact, 5. Growth activities | Most important preferences (%): 1) Have staff show you respect (96.50%); 2) Take care of your personal belongings or things (95.70%); 3) Have staff show they care about you (95.20%); 4) Have regular contact with family (93.30%); 5) Do what helps you feel better when you are upset (93.20%); 6) Choose who you would like involved in discussions about your care (92.90%) |
| (11) Block 1 | USA | 252 elders (age 55 and older) and 74 middle generation children of Great Lakes American Indians living in 3 residential areas | To explore differences in preferences between parent and middle generations for where and how LTC might be provided under conditions of dependency | Single question with pre-specified categories DV: “If you (your parent) could no longer take care of yourself (himself or herself) without help, which housing option would you prefer?” 1) Stay in own home with paid helpers, 2) Stay in own home with family help, 3) Move in with family, 4) Assisted living/foster care/group home, 5) Nursing home IV: age, education, sex, place of residence, index of illnesses, traditional culture, behaviors and attitudes related to LTC planning, language fluency | Preferred LTC option (Parent generation): 1) Stay in own home with paid helpers (30.4%), 2) Stay in own home with family help (31.3%), 3) Move in with family (4.4%), 4) Assisted living/foster care/group home (22.5%), 5) Nursing home (8.0%) Preferred LTC option (Middle generation): 1) Stay in own home with paid helpers (13.4%), 2) Stay in own home with family help (46.3%), 3) Move in with family (31.3%), 4) Assisted living/foster care/group home (5.9%), 5) Nursing home (3.1%) Preference for home care, Elder cohort*: female (OR: 2.08), traditional culture (OR: 1.25) |
| (15) Block 1 | Taiwan | 562 elderly people aged ≥ 65 years from 7 counties/cities in northern Taiwan | To investigate the preferences of the elderly in northern Taiwan with regard to various types of LTC services | Single question with pre-specified categories DV: “If you needed LTC services, taking every factor into practical consideration, which kind of LTC would you feel more inclined to accept?” 1) Institutional care, 2) Community-based care, 3) Home care IV: predisposing factors (age, gender, ethnic origin, marital status, education level, religion, living arrangements, economic condition), need factors (health condition, access to medical services, perceived health status, chronic diseases, outpatient visits, emergency visits, hospitalization history, regular physical examinations, preferred medical and rehabilitation services), subject’s understanding of and attitudes toward available LTC services | Preferred type of LTC: (1) Institutional care (16.72%), (2) Community-based care (9.61%), 3) Home care (73.67%) Home care vs. community-based care*: Visiting medical care team (OR: 2.12), Self-care information and others (OR: 4.39) Home care vs. institutional care*: Visiting medical care team (OR: 0.45) |
| (25) Block 1 | China | 20,255 older adults | To examine the willingness among older Chinese to live in eldercare institutions; to investigate the social, cultural, health and economic factors associated with such willingness | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: “Are you willing to live in an eldercare institution, such as an institution for respecting older adults, social welfare institution or senior apartment?” IV: predisposing factors (age, gender, education, marital status, having children, current living arrangement, willingness to live with children, family relations, socio-cultural beliefs and practices, psychological factors, knowledge and opinions), enabling factors (presence or local availability of eldercare institutions, monthly pension, savings for old age, self-assessed economic status), need factors (ADL, IADL, number of bed-ridden days, self-rated health status) | 19.7% of urban respondents were willing to enter a care home compared to 16.6% of rural older Chinese. Factors influencing such willingness*: 1) Urban: age (OR: 0.98), female (OR: 1.44), junior high school (OR: 1.28), senior high/technical school (OR: 1.37), college or above (OR: 1.71), willingness to live with children (OR: 0.85), family harmony (OR: 0.53), filial piety perceived (OR: 0.81), raising children to ensure eldercare (OR: 0.85), children unreliable for LTC (OR: 1.33), older adults are a family burden (OR: 1.11), feeling of loneliness (OR: 1.11), knowledge of eldercare institutions (OR: 1.87), opinions about eldercare institutions (OR: 2.82), amount of monthly pension (OR: 1.16), amount of savings for old age (OR: 1.13), self-assessed economic status (OR: 0.82); 2) Rural: female (OR: 0.80), married (OR: 1.21), family harmony (OR: 0.71), filial piety perceived (OR: 0.82), raising children to ensure eldercare (OR: 0.74), children unreliable for LTC (OR: 1.32), older adults are a family burden (OR: 0.91), knowledge of eldercare institutions (OR: 1.52), opinions about eldercare institutions (OR: 1.68), IADL score (OR: 0.95), eldercare institutions in the community (OR: 0.64), self-assessed economic status (OR: 0.82) |
| (18) Block 1 | Spain | 729 older adults > 55 years old from a Spanish population sample | To examine ex-ante and current preferences for housing (in old age) and its suitability, given current and future needs and characteristics | Single question (open ended) DV “If in the future you were to suffer a restriction in some activities of daily living such as walking, bathing, taking medication or using the telephone, where would you prefer to live?” IV: gender, age, housing price, size, income, saving, education, health and disability | Preferred type of residence in case of old-age dependency: 1) In my own home (men: 78.71%, women: 77.78%), 2) In a nursing home or similar (men: 17.67%, women: 15.6%), 3) In a relative’s home (men: 3.61%, women: 6.62%) Willingness to move: housing suitability changes with age, women were less likely to prefer moving, 10% increase in housing asset reduced probability of moving by 1.5% Housing improvements: 51% of the 55–60 age-group were prepared to make structural improvements to their dwelling compared to only 18% in the over-80 s group |
| (68) Block 1 | China | 1186 people over the age of 40 | To describe willingness of urban and rural residents to enter care homes and to examine personal factors which impact willingness | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: “Would you be willing to reside in a care home in the future?” IV: socio-demographics (age, gender, education, marital status, monthly income, occupation), physical health (chronic diseases), lifestyle and behavior (current residence, smoking, drinking, physical activity) | 34.8% were willing to enter a care home (41.6% of urban participants and 25.8% of rural participants) Willingness associated with*: Being employed (OR: 1.69), Education – high school (OR: 1.99), education – undergraduate or junior college (OR: 1.94), Higher monthly income (OR: 1.72) |
| (7) Block 1 | USA | 1503 adults of the general population between ages 40 to 70 | To disentangle the distribution of preferences for LTC along two dimensions: (1) care at home vs. a place other than home, (2) care provided by family vs. care by others | Rating DV: Preferences for care provided by 1) your family in your home, 2) your family in their home, 3) paid caregivers in your home or community, 4) a resident of an assisted living facility, 5) a resident of a nursing home IV: self-rated health, educational attainment, age, self-reported race, marital status, household income, respondent’s sex, additional questions to service familiarity | Preferred type of LTC: 1) your family in your home (63.5%), 2) your family in their home (32.8%), 3) paid caregivers in your home or community (46.6%), 4) a resident of an assisted living facility (30.1%), 5) a resident of a nursing home (10.0%) Preference for care at home: Female (OR: 1.39), very good health (0.39) Preference for care by kin: Education post high school (OR: 1.78), female (OR: 1.55), knowledge of services (OR: 0.86) |
| (34) Block 1 | Spain | 2535 older adults aged 65 years and over living in private dwellings | To shed light on the preferred residential and care arrangements in later life | Questions with pre-specified categories DV: preferred setting in case of not needing any kind of support/care; this setting in case of suffering any disability, which may impede the normal development of daily routines IV: socio-demographics, income, health status, current living environment, psychological and attitudinal factors | Preferred residential solution in old age dependency: 1) In own home (21%), 2) Co-residence—relative’s home (56%), 3) Co-residence – others (2%), 4) Institutionalization (21%) Preference for co-residence*: Widowed (Coeff: 0.09), living at children’s home (Coeff: 0.14), primary school (Coeff: 0.15), savings and assets (Coeff: 0.28), health status (Coeff: 0.11), preference for informal care (Coeff: -0.07), older people need constant support (Coeff: -0.12), older people are active and enjoy life (Coeff: -0.19), older people support other family members (Coeff: -0.14), older people do not have the support of society (Coeff: -0.08) Preference for institutionalization*: Gender (Coeff: -0.06), age 65 (Coeff: 0.06), age 80 (Coeff: −0.05), widowed (Coeff: -0.05), university (Coeff: 0.07), health status (-0.08), receiving formal care (Coeff: 0.09), loneliness (Coeff: 0.06), family satisfaction (Coeff: -0.09), preference for informal care (Coeff: -0.14), preference for paid care (Coeff: 0.07), older people need constant support (Coeff: 0.06), older people are a burden (Coeff: 0.09), older people do not have the support of society (Coeff: -0.08) |
| (60) Block 1 | China | 1090 participants from 4 Chinese cities | To explore and make theoretical sense of older people’s LTC needs; to identify the factors influencing LTC needs | Single question with pre-specified categories DV: “Which mode of LTC would you like to choose?” – 1) family care, 2) Home- and community- based services (HCBS), 3) institutional care IV: predisposing characteristics (age, gender, educational level, marital status, region), enabling factors (income, number of children, contact frequency with children), need factors (IADL, number of diseases), psychosocial factors (intergenerational relationships, unmet care service needs, self-image) |
Preferred LTC option: 1) 75.3% family care, 2) 16.7% HCBS, 3) 8.0% institutional care Family care vs. HCBS*: Region – BJ (OR: 0.474), Region – GZ (OR: 0.265), Region – HB (OR: 0.382), Number of children (OR: 1.268), Unmet care needs (OR: 0.936), Self-image (OR: 1.027) Institutional care vs. HCBS*: Currently not married (OR: 2.362), Region – GZ (OR: 0.138), Intergenerational relationships (OR: 0.676), Unmet care service needs (OR: 0.912), Self-image (OR: 1.044) |
| (50) Block 1 | Slovenia | 930 people ≥ 50 years old | To test the willingness of the elderly to accept various housing options and the attitudes toward the different options | Rating DV: “Have you considered moving in the future?” 1) Old people’s home, 2) Sheltered housing, 3) Senior co-housing, 4) Living in a multigenerational residential building, 5) Household groups, 6) Living with another family or individual, 7) Living with a caregiving family for older people IV: education, revenue, current health status, residence, age, type of settlement |
Living arrangement (% acceptable): 1) Old people’s home (71.7%), 2) Sheltered housing (55.6%), 3) Senior co-housing (25.8%), 4) Living in a multigenerational residential building (32.0%), 5) Household groups (30.6%), 6) Living with another family or individual (11.3%), 7) Living with a caregiving family for older people (7.5%) Associated with*: Education, revenue, current health status, age |
| (54) Block 1 | Germany | 1006 older adults aged 65 and over | To investigate the factors associated with preferences for LTC settings in old age in Germany | Rating DV: “When care is needed, I would like to be cared for…” 1) at own home, 2) in relatives’ homes, 3) in assisted living, 4) in nursing home/old age home, 5) in a foreign country IV: age, sex, living situation, region, education, place of birth, having children, status of health insurance, providing informal care to family or friends | Preferred LTC settings: 1) Home care (n = 866, 87.2%), 2) Care in relatives’ homes (n = 319, 32.3%), 3) Care in assisted living (n = 534, 55.6%), 4) Care in nursing home/old age home (n = 310, 32.0%), 5) Care in a foreign country (n = 54, 5.5%) Preference for home care*: provided care for family/friends (OR: 1.600), level of care (OR: 0.189), self-rated health (OR: 0.762) Preference for care in relatives’ homes*: female (OR: 0.506), living situation (OR: 0.559), children (OR: 1.610), status of health insurance (OR: 1.566), provided care for family/friends (OR: 1.468), self-rated health (OR: 1.192) Preference for care in assisted living*: apprenticeship/full-time vocational school (OR: 2.984), professional school or trade and technical school (OR: 2.666), university/Fachhochschule/school of engineering (OR: 3.494), level of care (OR: 1.900) Preference for care in nursing home*: German-born (OR: 1.782), self-rated health (OR: 0.850) Preference for care in foreign country*: age (OR: 0.902), apprenticeship/full-time vocational school (OR: 0.246), German-born (OR: 0.184) |
| (59) Block 1 | China | 670 adults aged 60 and above in the Hezuo community in Chengdu, China | To describe Chinese older adults’ willingness to enter LTC facilities; to examine individual factors associated with the willingness | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: “Are you willing to enter into one of these LTC facilities that integrate medical and social services in the future?” IV: socio-demographics (age, gender, marital status, education, occupation, income, insurance, living condition, being sick in last two weeks, number and type of chronic diseases, hospitalization in prior year), general well-being index, social support | 11.9% were willing to enter LTC facilities for meeting their medical and social service needs. Among those who were willing to enter LTC facilities, 81.2% would prefer going to a facility within 30-min walking distance from their current residence, 82.5% indicated the need of nursing care, and 90.0% expected a partnership between the LTC facility and a large hospital |
| (13) Block 1 | USA | 98 respondents with a mean age of 62 | To explore attitudes toward and preferences for living in the newly emerging place type of assisted living facilities in comparison to nursing homes | Rating DV: “In the future, how favorable or unfavorable would you feel about living in the places indicated below?” 1) assisted living, 2) nursing home, 3) their own homes IV: age, gender, educational status, current living arrangements, occupation, current work status | Preferred LTC option: Living at home was most favorable (mean = 1.06, SD = 0.43), followed by assisted living facilities (mean = 2.43, SD = 1.02) and nursing homes (mean = 4.44, SD = 0.75) Willingness associated with*: Higher household income (OR: 4.55), insurance of urban resident basic medical insurance (OR: 4.80), unemployment (OR: 0.48) |
| (36) Block 1 | USA | 499 “boomers” (age 51–71 years) in the state of Washington (Japanese-Americans compared to non-Japanese Americans) | To investigate perceptions about future LTC needs and preferences among the baby boomer generation of Japanese-American (JA) relative to non-JA older adults | Rating DV: LTC preferences, knowledge about LTC, LTC experience, expectation for LTC, LTC financial planning IV: age, sex, race, marital status, education and household income, geographical distance to children | Preferred LTC option in old age for JA: remain in their own home (24.03%), move to retirement community (18.78%), move to continuing care retirement community (17.26%), move to a skilled nursing or assisted living (4.57%), live with family member or close friend (4.57%), unsure (38.58%) LTC knowledge: JA were more knowledgeable about the cost of a month’s stay at a NH, more aware that these services would have to be paid out of pocket and more knowledgeable about the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease than non-JA Financial planning: JA participants were 3.15-fold more likely to have an IRA, 401-K account or an annuity and 2.55-fold more likely to have a LTC insurance policy than non-JA |
| (14) Block 1 | USA | 427 Korean-American adults aged 60 years or older | To explore predictors of willingness to use a nursing home in Korean American elders | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: Willingness to move to a nursing home IV: Predisposing factors (age, gender, educational attainment, length of residence in the USA), Potential health needs (medical conditions, functional disability, self-perceived health), Network-related enabling factors (marital status, living arrangement, family network, relative living in a NH) | 44.7% of the sample were willing to move to a nursing home in the future. Determinants of the willingness to use a nursing home*: poorer self-perceived health (OR: 1.46), having someone close living in a nursing home (OR: 2.80) |
| (16) Block 1 | Korea | 1168 older Korean adults aged 65 or older and their primary caregivers | To examine predictors of older adults’ and primary caregivers’ willingness to use LTC services | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: “Who do you think should take care of older parents if they become frail and need care?” 1) adult children only 2) both adult children and the government 3) the government only; Willingness to use LTC services—1) home care services 2) nursing home care services IV: predisposing factors (age, sex, marital status, education, employment, relationship to older adults, responsibility for care), enabling factors (number of children, monthly family income, geographic region), need factors (self-rated health, impairments in ADLs and IADLs, cognitive function, chronic conditions, care burden) | Willingness to use (older adults): home care (32.4%), nursing home care (16.6%) Willingness to use (primary caregivers): home care (40.5%), nursing home care (32.5%) Home care preference associated with*: (1) Older adults: elders saying care responsibility has children and government (ß = 0.76), caregivers saying care responsibility lies with children and government (ß = 0.55), (2) Primary caregivers: married (ß = 0.79), self-rated health as bad (ß = 0.58), care burden (ß = 0.02), caregivers saying care responsibility lies with children and government (ß = 1.53) Nursing home care preference associated with*: (1) Older adults: female (ß = −1.05), Number of children 5 + (ß = -1.30), monthly family income less than 1100 won (ß = 0.77), MMSE score 24–30 (ß = 1.01), Elders saying care responsibility lies with children and government (ß = 1.53), (2) Primary caregivers: middle school or more (ß = 1.06), Number of children 5 + (ß = −0.77), Elders saying care responsibility lies with children and government (ß = 0.62), care burden (0.03), primary caregivers saying care responsibility lies with children and government (ß = 0.96) |
| (8) Block 1 | Korea | 1850 people aged ≥ 65 years with > 1 limitation in ADLs or IADLs or scores < 20 on the MMSE | To explore the factors influencing the intention of Korean elderly to use LTC facilities | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: Intention to use LTC facilities IV: Predisposing factors (age, sex, marital status, education level, religion), Enabling factors (number of children, family structure, family income, place of residence), Need factors (self-rated health, ADLs, instrumental ADLs, cognitive level, comorbidity) | 18.8% (347) respondents expressed the intention to use LTC facilities. Stronger intention associated with*: younger age (OR: 1), Cristian religion (OR: 1.44), fewer children (OR: 1), lower family income (OR: 1), more chronic comorbidity (OR: 1.59) |
| (2) Block 1 | USA | 169 well-educated, relatively affluent older caregivers | To examine gender differences in attitudes about home and community-based services, service use, interest in services, and barriers to service use | Rating DV: Interest in specific services, Attitudinal questions: preference for informal care, belief in caregiver independence, acceptance of government services IV: age, sex, race, marital status, education, income, self-rated health, information about the care-recipient (age, sex, relationship to caregiver, ADLs, IADLs, frequency of help) | Service interest: Information about community and in-home support services (77.2%), Information about potential financial problems (78.9%), Support from other caregivers (61.1%), Respite care for family member (59.3%), Hospice Care (60.0%), Individual counselling (43.4%), Information about stress management (58.7%), Information about legal options (69.1%) Preferences for Informal care: I would rather use community services than ask for help from family (38.7%), I would rather ask family for help than use community services (56.7%) Belief in Caregiver Independence: I am proud of being able to care for my relative with little help from community services (63.1%), I think I should be able to care for my relative without help from community services (29.3%) Acceptance of Government Services: It is the government’s responsibility to help me find ways to care for my relative (21.1%), I believe the government should support more community services to help families care for persons at home (78.1%) |
| (46) Block 1 | China | 517 elderly from three rural villages (60 years and above) | To explore the factors influencing the willingness of the elderly to receive institutional and community-based eldercare in rural communities in China | Single question with pre-specified categories DV: “Which are you willing to choose?” Options: (0) home-based care, (1) living in a nursing home, (2) living in a senior care unit of a hospital, (3) community-based care) IV: socio-demographic information, physical disease, depression, anxiety, daily living activities, concerns toward eldercare in future | Preferred LTC options: 78.3% are willing to receive home-based eldercare, 10.8% institutional eldercare and 8.5% community-based eldercare. Major concerns toward 0: lack of care ability and loss of contact with family members Major concerns toward 1: unaffordable services and fear of being abandoned by children Major concerns toward 3: unaffordability and lack of necessary care |
| (4) Block 1 | USA, Germany | 558 American seniors and 772 German community-dwelling older adults | To investigate preferences for future support by older adults who live an independent life in the community | Questions with pre-specified categories DV: Preferences for short- and long-term care: 1) getting help from relatives 2) getting help from friends and acquaintances 3) moving in with relatives, 4) getting home health care 5) moving to an assisted living facility 6) moving to a nursing home IV: Deficits in everyday competence, socioeconomic status, informal network, previous receipt of personal care, age, gender, marital status, perceived availability of options | Short-term care: 1. Exclusive use of informal support: USA (19.0%), GER (32.4), 2. Exclusive use of formal support: USA (17.5%), GER (13.7%), 3. Use of mixed support: USA (59.5%), GER (51.7%), 4. No support preferences: USA (4.1%), GER (2.2%) Long-term care: 1. Exclusive use of informal support: USA (15.2%), GER (24.9%), 2. Exclusive use of formal support: USA (36.0%), GER (29.2%), 3. Use of mixed support: USA (43.2%), GER (39.6%), 4. No support preferences: USA (5.6%), GER (6.3%) |
| (51) Block 3 | Poland | 214 senior citizens ≥ 55 years of age | To identify the willingness of pensioners to move from apartment/house to one located in a housing estate | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: willingness to change housing adapted to the needs resulting from mobility limitations, preferences for facilities at senior housing estate IV: gender, age, place of residence, family situation | Willingness to change place of residence: village (yes: 15.5%), city up to 50,000 residents (yes: 12.6%), city up to 100,000 residents (yes: 20.4%), city up to 250,000 residents (yes: 4.9%), city over 250,000 residents (yes: 46.6%) Most popular facilities were: 24 h on-call medical car–button in the apartment (63%) and 24 h medical care–on call duty at estate (60%) |
| (57) Block 1 | China | 505 rural single seniors from Shandong, China | To examine the gender difference toward utilization willingness of institutional care among rural single seniors | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: “Which way of elder care are you willing for?” – institutional care coded as yes, rest coded as no IV: age, gender, education, number of children, relationship with children, residence, living arrangements, household income, family size, physical health status (self-rated health, non-communicable chronic diseases, ADL), psychological well-being (social support, psychological stress) | 5.7% of rural single seniors were willing to use institutional care (9.3% of single male and 3.5% of single female seniors) Associated with*: female (OR: 0.19), living arrangement–with children or others (OR: 0.13), psychological stress (OR: 0.005) |
| (56) Block 1 | China | 3923 seniors in Shandong | To compare the willingness to use institutional care between empty-nest and non-empty-nest seniors in China | Binary choice (yes/no) DV: “Which endowment way are you willing for?”—Seniors’ willingness for institutional care (No = home-based care, community endowments or others) IV: gender, age, education, past occupation, marital status, number of children, relationship with children, residence, self-reported health status, psychological stress, ADL, non-communicable diseases, household income | 8.5% of seniors indicate willingness for institutional care. Associated with*: Non-empty nester (OR: 1.0), Empty-nest single (OR: 5.301), Empty-nest couple (OR: 1.547), Junior school or above (OR: 1.617), Poor relationship with children (OR: 2.504), Rural Residence (OR: 0.546), ADL III (OR: 0.577), Household income Q3 (OR: 1.612), Household income Q4 (OR: 2.065) |
| (49) Block 3 | USA | Data set with 244,718 residents ≥ 65 years | To group residents according to similarities in preferences; to determine the factors that predict membership in these groups | Rating DV: nursing home preferences (The MDS preference assessment was used, which assesses the importance of 16 daily care and activity preferences using a 5-point Likert scale.) IV: race, gender, cognition, ethnicity, depression | 4 classes were determined: 1. “important” (38.3%), 2. “activity” (27.1%), 3. “care” (24.1%), 4. Unimportant (10.4%) Activity vs. care*: African American (OR: 1.6), Hispanic (OR: 2.1), Other (OR: 1.5), female (OR: 1.7), depressed (OR: 0.7), moderate cognitive impairment (OR: 1.5), severe cognitive impairment (OR: 3.1) Important vs. care*: African American (OR: 2.35), Hispanic (OR: 2.95), Other (OR: 1.5), female (OR: 1.6), depressed (OR: 0.65), severe cognitive impairment (OR: 2.0) Important vs. unimportant*: African American (OR: 2.15), Hispanic (OR: 2.1), female (OR: 2.05), depressed (OR: 0.5), severe cognitive impairment (OR: 0.6) Unimportant vs. care*: Other (OR: 1.8), moderate cognitive impairment (OR: 1.6), severe cognitive impairment (OR: 3.4) Activity vs. unimportant*: Hispanic (OR: 1.55), female (OR: 2.1), depressed (OR: 0.5) Activity vs. important*: African-American (OR: 0.7), severe cognitive impairment (OR: 1.5) |
| (47) Block 1 | China | 306 parents aged > 49 years who lost their only child in these communities: Jinghu, Jiujiang, Yijiang and Sanshan | To understand the elderly care needs of parents who lost their only child | Questions with pre-specified categories DV: “Which mode of elderly care would you like to choose in the future?” – 1) community or home care, 2) institutional, community or home care) and “Whom do you want to look after you in the future?” – 1) family, 2) nurse/nursing home, 3) volunteer) IV: sex, educational level, marital status, having grandchildren, number of chronic diseases, self-rated health status, monthly income, social support rating scale (SSRS), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Geriatric Depression scale (GDS) | Preferred LTC options: 1) 47.4% parents chose community or home care, 2) 52.6% chose institutional care. Preference associated with*: Higher GDS score (OR 1.179) |
| (28) Block 1 | Germany | 1445 respondents ≥ 45 years from the general population | To assess wishes and expectations regarding family care | Questions with pre-specified categories DV: Willingness to make use of family resources in case of a care dependency IV: sex, age, family status, education level, family income, living situation, care experience | In case of own need: 62.9% of participants would prefer care provided by relatives and 56.7% would prefer professional care Willingness to use family care associated with*: living together with a partner (OR: 3.65), having children (OR: 3.12), having personal care experiences (OR: 1.35), image of being a burden at old age (OR: 0.79) Perceived willingness of relatives to provide care was influenced by*: geographical distance > 50 km apart (OR: 0.30), spoken with child about wishes for old age (OR: 2.11), spoken with child about how care should be financed (OR: 1.90), being female (OR: 0.59), spoken with partner about wishes for old age (OR: 2.31) |
| (20) Block 1 | China | 186 young, 161 middle-aged and 185 older Chinese in Hong-Kong | To explore age-cohort differences on attitudes and intention toward old age home placement | Rating DV: Intention to enter/refer to old age home, attitudes toward old age homes and older people IV: age, gender, marital status, educational attainment | Intention of referring to old age home: young adults (mean: 3.15), middle-aged (mean: 3.31) Intention of entering old age home: older Chinese (mean: 2.08) Intention of referring/entering old age home*: 1) Young adults: beliefs about independence (ß = 0.21), attitudes toward old people (ß = 0.18), attitudes toward old age home (ß = 0.42); 2) Middle-aged: attitudes toward old age home (ß = 0.30); 3) Old-aged Chinese: attitudes toward old age home (ß = 0.33) |
| (12) Block 1 | Taiwan | 593 elderly people aged ≥ 65 years and 587 caregivers | To examine the preferences of the elderly and their primary caregivers in LTC arrangements | Single question with pre-specified categories DV: “If you (your elderly family member) needed LTC services, taking every factor into practical consideration, which kind of LTC would you feel more inclined to accept?” 1) Home care 2) Community care 3) Institutional care IV: gender, age, educational level, marriage status, ethnic origin, religion, residency, monthly income, perceived health status, care resources, receipt of a monthly stipend from the government, care experience | Preferred LTC option (elderly): 1) Home care (73.7%) 2) Community care (9.6%) 3) Institutional care (16.7%) Preferred LTC option (primary caregiver): 1) Home care (68.1%) 2) Community care (12.2%) 3) Institutional care (19.7%) Factors influencing preference for institutional care*: 1) Elderly: ethnic origin—China (OR: 2.15), residential location – other areas (OR: 1.81), No government subsidy (OR: 1.78); 2) Primary caregiver: ethnic origin – China (OR: 2.24), elementary education (OR: 3.79), not harmonious relationship to elderly (OR: 1.66) Factors influencing preference for community-based care*: 1) Elderly: age 65–74 years (OR: 3.12); 2) Primary caregivers: ethnic origin – China (OR: 2.26), not harmonious relationship to elderly (OR: 1.84), no care difficulties (OR: 1.90) |
| (67) Block 1 | China | 3260 elderly people aged ≥ 60 years | To provide a reference to enable policymakers to optimize resource arrangement and ensure the sustainability of China’s old-age security policy | Questions with pre-specified categories DV: Combination of medical care and Pension in LTC facilities (CMCP)—1) “Do you want to live in an LTC facility with CMCP?”, 2) “If you live in a CMCP facility, what kind of service would you like to receive?” IV: predisposing variables (age, gender, residence, current living arrangement, educational level), enabling factors (occupation, marital status, economic status, primary caregivers, number of children, medical insurance), personal needs variables (activities of daily living, feelings of loneliness, self-rated health status) | Preferred LTC options: 12.89% wanted to be admitted to a CMCP nursing facility, 82.01% preferred home-based care and 5.1% preferred community care. Significantly associated with*: Residence – Town (OR: 1.74), Residence – Rural (OR: 2.16), Not married (OR: 1.64), Economic status/expenditures are balanced (OR: 1.64), Economic status – income exceeded (OR: 2.28), Primary caregiver: spouse (OR: 0.32), Primary caregiver: others (OR: 1.77), ADL: relatively independent (OR: 2.13), ADL: Disability (OR: 3.69) |
| (62)Block 3 | China | 82 senior citizens living in their original communities | To identify senior citizens’ requirements related to ‘embedded retirement facilities’ (ERFs) – small-scale, multi-functional and community-based care facilities | Ranking Ranking of the four main aspects of services (in cursive), followed by ranking of 22 detailed services related to each main aspect | 1. Health care (1. Regular health examination, 2. Health counselling, 3. Going to the hospital with someone accompanied, 4. General practitioner, 5. Psychological counselling); 2. Rehabilitation and entertainment (1. Fitness exercises, 2. Chess and cards playing, 3. Singing and dancing, 4. Massage, 5. Post-operative nursing); 3. Daily life assistance (1. Canteens for senior citizens, 2. Room cleaning, 3. Meals on wheels, 4. Laundry, 5. Day care, 6. Purchasing, 7. Full-time nursery, 8. Legal assistance); 4. Culture-related activities (1. Reading, 2. Seminars, 3. Painting and calligraphy, 4. Handmade activities) |
| (48) Block 1 | China | 1308 elderly from Chengdu, Chongqing, Guizhou, and Hubei province | To explore the factors that affect LTC needs of the elderly | Single question with pre-specified categories DV: “Which LTC way do you want to choose?”–1) home care, 2) community-based care, 3) institutional care IV: predisposing characteristics (age, gender, education level, marital status, regions), enabling factors (income level, quantity of children, frequency of connection with children), need factors (IADL, quantity of chronic diseases) and psychological factors (intergenerational ties, unmet needs for LTC, self-image evaluation) | Preferred LTC option: 75.3% chose home care, 16.6% community-based care and 8.0% institutional care. Institutional care vs. community-based care*: unmarried (OR 2.4801), region–GZ (OR: 0.1449), intergenerational relationships (OR: 0.7098), unmet care service needs (OR: 0.9576), self-image evaluation (OR: 1.0962) Home care vs. community based care*: Region–CQ (OR: 0.4977), Region–GZ (OR: 1.2782), Region–HB (OR: 0.4011), number of children (OR: 1.3314), unmet care service needs (OR: 0.9828), self-image evaluation (OR: 1.0783) |
| (58) Block 1 | China | 14,373 participants aged 60 and above | To assess the effects of health status and living arrangements on LTC models among the elderly of Xiamen, China | Single question with pre-specified categories DV: “Where do you most want to receive LTC?”–1) family care, 2) community care, 3) institutional care) IV: predisposing factors (age, gender, occupation, education), enabling variables (living arrangements, residence location, marital status, medical insurance, family income, number of children), need variables (ADL, chronic diseases, self-rated health, life satisfaction, feelings of aloneness) |
Preferred LTC options: 86.37% home care, 2.86% institutional care, 10.77% community-based care Associated with*: Health status–relatively independent (OR: 1.64), health status–disability (OR: 3.95), living arrangement with child (OR: 0.54), living arrangement–spouse and child (OR: 0.67), living arrangement–others (OR: 0.60), |
1This column includes the content-related classification of each study into one of the four main entities (“blocks”)
Note: only statistically significant results are presented (*), DV = dependent variable, IV = independent variable