N Vecchio1, K Radford2, J A Fitzgerald2, T Comans3, P Harris4, N Harris5. 1. a Griffith Business School, Menzies Health Institute Queensland , Griffith University , Gold Coast , Australia. 2. b Griffith Business School , Griffith University , Gold Coast , Australia. 3. c Menzies Health Institute Queensland, School of Medicine, Nathan Campus , Griffith University , Nathan , Australia. 4. d School of Human Services and Social Work, Logan Campus , Griffith University , Logan , Australia. 5. e Public Health, School of Medicine, Gold Coast Campus , Griffith University , Gold Coast , Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify feasible models of intergenerational care programmes, that is, care of children and older people in a shared setting, to determine consumer preferences and willingness to pay. METHOD: Feasible models were constructed in extensive consultations with a panel of experts using a Delphi technique (n = 23) and were considered based on their practical implementation within an Australian setting. This informed a survey tool that captured the preferences and willingness to pay for these models by potential consumers, when compared to the status quo. Information collected from the surveys (n = 816) was analysed using regression analysis to identify fundamental drivers of preferences and the prices consumers were willing to pay for intergenerational care programmes. RESULTS: The shared campus and visiting models were identified as feasible intergenerational care models. Key attributes of these models included respite day care; a common educational pedagogy across generations; screening; monitoring; and evaluation of participant outcomes. Although parents were more likely to take up intergenerational care compared to the status quo, adult carers reported a higher willingness to pay for these services. Educational attainment also influenced the likely uptake of intergenerational care. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that there is demand for the shared campus and the visiting campus models among the Australian community. The findings support moves towards consumer-centric models of care, in line with national and international best practice. This consumer-centric approach is encapsulated in the intergenerational care model and enables greater choice of care to match different consumer demands.
OBJECTIVES: To identify feasible models of intergenerational care programmes, that is, care of children and older people in a shared setting, to determine consumer preferences and willingness to pay. METHOD: Feasible models were constructed in extensive consultations with a panel of experts using a Delphi technique (n = 23) and were considered based on their practical implementation within an Australian setting. This informed a survey tool that captured the preferences and willingness to pay for these models by potential consumers, when compared to the status quo. Information collected from the surveys (n = 816) was analysed using regression analysis to identify fundamental drivers of preferences and the prices consumers were willing to pay for intergenerational care programmes. RESULTS: The shared campus and visiting models were identified as feasible intergenerational care models. Key attributes of these models included respite day care; a common educational pedagogy across generations; screening; monitoring; and evaluation of participant outcomes. Although parents were more likely to take up intergenerational care compared to the status quo, adult carers reported a higher willingness to pay for these services. Educational attainment also influenced the likely uptake of intergenerational care. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that there is demand for the shared campus and the visiting campus models among the Australian community. The findings support moves towards consumer-centric models of care, in line with national and international best practice. This consumer-centric approach is encapsulated in the intergenerational care model and enables greater choice of care to match different consumer demands.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mild cognitive impairment; caregiving and interventions; service provision; social support; types of services
Authors: Katrina Radford; Janna Anneke Fitzgerald; Nerina Vecchio; Jennifer Cartmel; Ryan Bruce Gould; Jennifer Kosiol Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 4.614