| Literature DB >> 31488100 |
Liangwen Zhang1,2, Yanbing Zeng1,2, Ya Fang3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The technical efficiency (TE) of care among the elderly in long-term care facilities (LTCF) have become increasingly crucial policy concerns faced by developing countries and Asia, especially China. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the TE and the quality of care and identify its influencing factors among LTCF.Entities:
Keywords: BCC; Long-term care; Quality; SBM; Technical efficiency; Tobit model
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31488100 PMCID: PMC6729073 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7571-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
The basic situation of the 32 LTCF
| Characteristics | Ownership | Location | Total N (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public | Private | Urban | Rural | ||
| Type of disabilitya | |||||
| Disabled | 1 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 9(28.1) |
| Partially disabled | 2 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 11(34.4) |
| Independent | 4 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 12(37.5) |
| Operating years | |||||
| <5 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 11(34.4) |
| 5~ | 1 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 9(28.1) |
| 10~ | 4 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 12(37.5) |
| Housing source | |||||
| Free allocation | 6 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 8(25.0) |
| Lease | 1 | 14 | 12 | 3 | 15(46.9) |
| Privately-owned | 0 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 9(28.1) |
| Number of beds | |||||
| <100 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 9(28.1) |
| 100~ | 2 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 10(31.3) |
| 300~ | 3 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 13(40.6) |
| Occupancy rate (%) | |||||
| <50 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7(21.9) |
| 50~ | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 9(28.1) |
| 70~ | 1 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 7(21.9) |
| 90~ | 1 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 9(28.1) |
aNote:The main types of daily activity ability of the elderly residents in LTCF, including independent, partially disabled and disabled seniors, respectively
Descriptive Statistics of Inputs and Outputs
| Variable | M | SD | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs | ||||
| Input 1 (million yuan) | 2.2 | 3.68 | 0.5 | 16 |
| Input 2 | 5.5 | 5.96 | 1 | 31 |
| Input 3 | 5.5 | 8.40 | 1 | 36 |
| Input 4 | 24 | 22.32 | 10 | 115 |
| Input 5 | 7.5 | 8.57 | 1 | 35 |
| Input 6 | 80 | 96.42 | 24 | 300 |
| Outputs | ||||
| Output 1 | 11.5 | 20.44 | 6 | 100 |
| Output 2 | 28.5 | 22.56 | 2 | 85 |
| Output 3 | 33.5 | 53.27 | 4 | 249 |
| Output 4 (%) | 14.65 | 5.21 | 0 | 39.8 |
| Output 5 (%) | 2.04 | 2.17 | 0 | 18 |
| Output 6 (%) | 0.85 | 0.26 | 0 | 4.71 |
The TE evaluation of the 32 LTCF
| DMU | BCC Model | SBM Model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TE | PTE | SE | RTS | TE | Order | |
| 1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 8 |
| 2 | 0.910 | 0.930 | 0.979 | DRS | 0.437 | 30 |
| 3 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 11 |
| 4 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 3 |
| 5 | 0.913 | 1.000 | 0.913 | DRS | 0.714 | 21 |
| 6 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 15 |
| 7 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 4 |
| 8 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 13 |
| 9 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 7 |
| 10 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 2 |
| 11 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 16 |
| 12 | 0.634 | 0.669 | 0.946 | DRS | 0.363 | 32 |
| 13 | 0.985 | 0.986 | 0.999 | DRS | 0.757 | 20 |
| 14 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 5 |
| 15 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 14 |
| 16 | 0.958 | 1.000 | 0.958 | IRS | 0.577 | 25 |
| 17 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 12 |
| 18 | 0.993 | 0.998 | 0.996 | IRS | 0.679 | 22 |
| 19 | 0.990 | 0.991 | 0.999 | IRS | 0.886 | 18 |
| 20 | 0.948 | 0.958 | 0.990 | IRS | 0.670 | 23 |
| 21 | 0.912 | 0.919 | 0.992 | CRS | 0.472 | 29 |
| 22 | 0.883 | 1.000 | 0.883 | DRS | 0.570 | 26 |
| 23 | 0.922 | 1.000 | 0.922 | DRS | 0.812 | 19 |
| 24 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 10 |
| 25 | 0.958 | 1.000 | 0.958 | DRS | 0.567 | 27 |
| 26 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 1 |
| 27 | 0.968 | 0.999 | 0.969 | IRS | 0.485 | 28 |
| 28 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 17 |
| 29 | 0.873 | 0.887 | 0.985 | DRS | 0.422 | 31 |
| 30 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 1.000 | CRS | 0.607 | 24 |
| 31 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 9 |
| 32 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | CRS | 1.000 | 6 |
Note:PTE Pure technical efficiency; SE: scale efficiency; TE = PTE*SE
Adjusted volume and proportion of input indicators in 8 LTCF with DRS
| DMU | Input 2 | Input 3 | Input 4 | Input 5 | Input 6 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAa | % | NA | % | NA | % | NA | % | NA | % | |
| 2 | 7 | 87.50 | 8 | 80.00 | 3 | 18.75 | 21 | 95.45 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 5 | 0 | 4.34 | 20 | 81.79 | 4 | 13.49 | 12 | 43.36 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 12 | 25 | 81.20 | 19 | 81.84 | 66 | 75.99 | 18 | 51.60 | 73 | 27.90 |
| 13 | 2 | 47.29 | 3 | 37.37 | 7 | 36.74 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 22 | 5 | 45.71 | 13 | 74.37 | 14 | 37.97 | 5 | 57.14 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 23 | 1 | 10.12 | 12 | 67.88 | 7 | 15.79 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 25 | 5 | 62.83 | 2 | 38.06 | 13 | 44.92 | 4 | 70.75 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 29 | 7 | 87.45 | 8 | 80.51 | 3 | 21.11 | 21 | 94.98 | 15 | 4.90 |
| Mean | 6 | 53.31 | 10 | 67.73 | 14 | 33.10 | 10 | 51.66 | 11 | 4.10 |
Note: aNA: the number of adjustments
Tobit regression analysis of the influential factors on TE of LTCF
| BCC Model | SBM Model | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate |
| 95%CI | Estimate |
| 95%CI | |||
| Environmental Factors | ||||||||
| Location | −0.035 | 0.238 | −0.095 | 0.025 | −0.258 | 0.044* | −0.508 | −0.007 |
| Institutional nature | 0.068 | 0.020* | 0.011 | 0.124 | 0.150 | 0.187 | − 0.078 | 0.377 |
| Management Factors | ||||||||
| Working time ≥ 2 years | 0.193 | 0.028* | − 0.023 | 0.409 | 1.101 | 0.019* | 0.193 | 2.008 |
| Annual number of trainings | 0.013 | 0.000*** | 0.006 | 0.019 | 0.043 | 0.002** | 0.017 | 0.069 |
| Regular college graduate | −0.227 | 0.002** | − 0.397 | −0.057 | − 0.763 | 0.034* | −1.463 | − 0.063 |
| Occupancy rate | 0.229 | 0.039* | −0.047 | 0.505 | 1.102 | 0.035* | 0.085 | 2.118 |
| Pseudo R2 | 37.489 | 0.678 | ||||||
| Likelihood ratio | 17.135 | −6.518 | ||||||
Note:***P<0.001; **P<0.01; *P<0.05