| Literature DB >> 32731557 |
Yong Wei1,2, Liangwen Zhang1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the status quo and factors that influence the preferences of the elderly for the combination of medical care and pension (CMCP) in long-term care (LTC) facilities and to provide an evidence-based basis for building a multi-tiered, continuous LTC system with CMCP.Entities:
Keywords: Andersen model; care needs; combination of medical care and pension; elderly; influencing factors
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32731557 PMCID: PMC7432067 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17155436
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The Andersen theoretical model for influencing factors of the combination of medical care and pension (CMCP) service needs.
Different distribution characteristics of the elderly CMCP needs N(%).
| Variables | CMCP Needs | Total |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Residence | Urban | 244 (60.7) | 1327 (48.8) | 1571 (50.3) | 38.88 | <0.001 |
| ( | Town | 70 (17.4) | 362 (13.3) | 432 (13.9) | ||
| Rural | 88 (21.9) | 1028 (37.8) | 1116 (35.8) | |||
| Gender | Male | 207 (51.5) | 1382 (50.9) | 1589 (51.0) | 0.05 | 0.81 |
| ( | Female | 195 (48.5) | 1335 (49.1) | 1530 (49.0) | ||
| Age (year) | 60~ | 280 (69.7) | 1450 (53.4) | 1730 (55.5) | 40.20 | <0.001 |
| ( | 70~ | 90 (22.4) | 825 (30.4) | 915 (29.3) | ||
| 80~ | 32 (8.0) | 442 (16.3) | 474 (15.2) | |||
| Education | Illiterate | 107 (27.0) | 1134 (42.0) | 1241 (40.1) | 33.55 | <0.001 |
| ( | Primary | 132 (33.2) | 736 (27.3) | 868 (28.0) | ||
| Junior high school | 85 (21.4) | 473 (17.5) | 558 (18.0) | |||
| Senior high school and above | 73 (18.4) | 357 (13.2) | 430 (13.9) | |||
| Living alone | No | 345 (87.6) | 2301 (88.6) | 2646 (88.4) | 0.34 | 0.56 |
| ( | Yes | 49 (12.4) | 297 (11.4) | 346 (11.6) | ||
| Occupation | Farmer | 137 (34.1) | 1349 (49.9) | 1486 (47.8) | <0.001 | |
| Non-farmer | 265 (65.9) | 1357 (50.1) | 1622 (52.2) | |||
| Number of children | 0 | 6 (1.5) | 26 (1.0) | 32 (1.0) | 40.92 | <0.001 |
| ( | 1 | 118 (29.5) | 448 (16.5) | 566 (18.2) | ||
| ≥2 | 276 (69.0) | 2233 (82.5) | 2509 (80.8) | |||
| Marital status | Married | 294 (76.2) | 1779 (68.8) | 2073 (69.8) | 8.65 | 0.003 |
| ( | Unmarried | 92 (23.8) | 807 (31.2) | 899 (30.2) | ||
| Economic status | Expenditures exceeded income | 73 (18.2) | 440 (16.3) | 513 (16.6) | 13.38 | 0.04 |
| ( | Balance | 280 (69.7) | 1882 (69.9) | 2162 (69.8) | ||
| Income exceeded expenditures | 49 (12.2) | 372 (13.8) | 421 (13.6) | |||
| Primary caregiver | None | 140 (40.1) | 686 (28.3) | 826 (29.8) | 21.89 | <0.001 |
| ( | Spouse | 128 (36.7) | 1003 (41.4) | 1131 (40.8) | ||
| Children | 78 (22.3) | 685 (28.3) | 763 (27.5) | |||
| Others | 3 (0.9) | 48 (2.0) | 51 (1.9) | |||
| Medical insurance | No | 16 (4.1) | 142 (5.4) | 158 (5.2) | 4.35 | 0.23 |
| ( | Yes | 372 (95.9) | 2478 (94.6) | 2850 (94.8) | ||
| Self-rated health | Bad | 49 (12.3) | 399 (14.8) | 448 (14.5) | 2.10 | 0.08 |
| ( | Good | 349 (87.7) | 2291 (85.2) | 1232 (85.5) | ||
| ADL | Completely independent | 364 (96.0) | 2164 (85.9) | 2528 (87.2) | 30.54 | <0.001 |
| ( | Relatively independent | 8 (2.1) | 199 (7.9) | 207 (7.1) | ||
| Disability | 7 (1.8) | 157 (6.2) | 164 (5.7) | |||
| Feeling of loneliness | Often | 147 (36.6) | 1077 (39.6) | 1224 (39.2) | 2.52 | 0.28 |
| ( | Sometimes | 159 (39.6) | 966 (35.6) | 1125 (36.1) | ||
| Seldom/never | 96 (23.9) | 674 (24.8) | 770 (24.7) | |||
ADL, activities of daily living.
Logistic regression analysis of influencing factors of CMCP service needs.
| Variables | OR (95%CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
| Predisposing variables | ||||
| Residence (ref. urban) | ||||
| Town | 1.94 (1.49, 2.54) *** | 1.63 (1.18, 2.24) ** | 2.04 (1.54, 2.70) *** | 1.74 (1.25, 2.43) ** |
| Rural | 2.10 (1.49, 2.96) *** | 2.07 (1.41, 3.05) *** | 2.3 (1.59, 3.31) *** | 2.16 (1.44, 3.26) ** |
| Age (ref. 60~69) | ||||
| 70~79 | 2.21 (1.48, 3.30) *** | 1.65 (1.06, 2.58) * | 1.74 (1.13, 2.69) * | 1.29 (0.80, 2.08) |
| ≥80 | 1.31 (0.84, 2.03) | 1.09 (0.68, 1.75) | 1.04 (0.65, 1.66) | 0.87 (0.52, 1.43) |
| Education (ref. illiterate) | ||||
| Primary | 0.58 (0.41, 0.80) ** | 0.77 (0.51, 0.95) * | 0.62 (0.44, 0.87) ** | 0.83 (0.55, 1.26) |
| Junior high school | 0.94 (0.68, 1.29) | 1.18 (0.81, 1.73) | 0.97 (0.70, 1.35) | 1.18 (0.79, 1.74) |
| Senior high school and above | 1.86 (1.11, 2.21) ** | 1.96 (1.65, 2.40) * | 1.81 (1.57, 2.16) * | 1.95 (0.64, 3.40) |
| Enabling variables | ||||
| Occupation (ref. farmer) | 1.4 (1.03, 1.90) | 1.27 (0.93, 1.75) | ||
| Number of children (ref. 0) | ||||
| 1 | 0.77 (0.17, 3.44) | 0.82 (0.18, 3.75) | ||
| ≥2 | 1.35 (1.00, 1.84) | 1.37 (1.00, 1.87) | ||
| Marital status (ref. married) | 1.61 (1.14, 2.27) ** | 1.64 (1.15, 2.34) ** | ||
| Economic status (ref. expenditures exceeded income) | ||||
| Balance | 1.71 (1.10, 2.67) * | 1.64 (1.03, 2.60) * | ||
| Income exceeded expenditures | 2.34 (1.92, 3.94) ** | 2.28 (1.88, 3.88) ** | ||
| Primary caregiver (ref. none) | ||||
| Spouse | 0.47 (0.19, 0.81) ** | 0.32 (0.12, 0.95) ** | ||
| Children | 1.46 (0.43, 4.94) | 1.27 (0.37, 4.35) | ||
| Others | 2.05 (1.60, 4.97) * | 1.77 (1.51, 3.12) * | ||
| Need variables | ||||
| Self-rated health (ref. bad) | 1.13 (0.80, 1.58) | 1.11 (0.77, 1.61) | ||
| ADL (ref. completely independent) | ||||
| Relatively independent | 2.35 (1.05, 5.26) * | 2.13 (1.94, 4.85) * | ||
| Disability | 3.78 (2.27, 5.30) ** | 3.69 (2.22, 5.12) ** | ||
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
The comparison of prediction probabilities and goodness of fit of model I–IV.
| −2LL | −2LL Change Value * | Cox and Snell R2 | Cox and Snell R2 Change Value * | Nagelkerke R2 | Nagelkerke R2 Change Value * | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model I | 1734.464 | — | 0.050 | — | 0.094 | — |
| Model II | 1792.426 | +57.962 | 0.037 | −0.013 | 0.069 | −0.025 |
| Model III | 2094.023 | +359.559 | 0.036 | −0.014 | 0.065 | −0.029 |
| Model IV | 1858.182 | +123.718 | 0.045 | −0.005 | 0.084 | −0.010 |
Note: * Change value is compared with the model I increase or decrease value.
Odds ratios of anticipated CMCP services (binary logistic regression).
| Variables | Personal Care | Medical Care | Psychological Consulting | Health Examination | Social and Recreational Activities | Healthcare Education |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predisposing variables | ||||||
| Residence (ref. urban) | ||||||
| Town | 1.94(1.49,2.54) ** | 1.65(1.06,2.58) * | 1.63(1.18,2.24) ** | 2.35(1.05,5.26) * | 2.04(1.54,2.70) ** | 1.74(1.25,2.43) ** |
| Rural | 2.10(1.49,2.96) *** | 2.30(1.59,3.31) *** | 2.07(1.41,3.05) *** | 3.78(2.27,5.30) ** | 2.39(1.28,3.35) ** | 2.16(1.44,3.26) ** |
| Age (ref. 60~69) | ||||||
| 70~79 | 1.79(1.42,2.53) * | 1.69(1.22,2.13) ** | 1.19(0.68,1.76) | 1.54(1.13,2.50) * | 1.14(0.75,1.69) | 1.39(0.79,2.28) |
| ≥80 | 2.31(1.58,3.29) *** | 2.17(1.43,3.16) ** | 1.66(1.16,2.48) * | 2.18(1.78,3.68) ** | 1.64(1.23,2.59) * | 1.97(1.42,2.25) ** |
| Education (ref. illiterate) | ||||||
| Primary | 0.59(0.46,0.87) ** | 0.38(0.13,0.95) ** | 0.78(0.51,0.94) * | 1.28(0.91,1.76) | 0.63(0.43,0.89) ** | 0.81(0.55,1.26) |
| Junior high school | 0.91(0.65,1.24) | 1.29(0.37,4.35) | 1.19(0.82,1.75) | 1.38(1.05,1.87) | 0.95(0.74,1.37) | 1.19(0.79,1.74) |
| Senior high school and above | 1.84(1.12,2.24) ** | 1.78(1.52,3.12) * | 1.97(1.66,2.41) * | 1.65(1.19,2.37) ** | 1.82(1.58,2.12) ** | 1.96(1.64,3.40) ** |
| Enabling variables | ||||||
| Occupation (ref. farmer) | 1.25(0.79,1.78) | 1.27(0.81,1.79) | 1.37(1.23,1.89) | 1.31(0.94,1.76) | 1.32(0.81,1.79) | 1.18(0.82,1.78) |
| Number of children (ref. 0) | ||||||
| 1 | 0.61(0.48,3.25) | 0.72(0.28,3.65) | 0.68(0.27,3.44) | 0.59(0.31,0.75) * | 0.76(0.38,3.57) | 0.81(0.18,3.64) |
| ≥2 | 1.47(0.33,1.78) | 1.27(0.98,1.77) | 1.24(0.59,1.74) | 1.15(0.61,1.53) | 1.46(0.58,1.67) | 1.26(0.57,1.76) |
| Marital status (ref. married) | 1.61(1.27,2.34) ** | 1.54(1.25,2.24) ** | 1.52(1.24,2.17) ** | 1.69(1.45,2.31) * | 2.24(1.56,2.84) ** | 1.55(1.15,2.72) ** |
| Economic status (ref. balance), | ||||||
| expenditures exceeded income | 1.74(1.13,2.71) * | 1.47(0.36,1.67) | 1.61(1.10,2.77) * | 1.19(0.78,1.75) | 1.74(1.13,2.50) * | 1.54(1.03,2.50) * |
| Income exceeded expenditures | 2.38(1.98,3.98) ** | 1.74(1.35,2.74) ** | 2.24(1.82,3.94) ** | 1.75(1.06,2.68) * | 2.38(1.58,3.89) ** | 2.38(1.78,3.87) ** |
| Primary caregiver (ref. none) | ||||||
| Spouse | 0.22(0.32,0.85) ** | 0.88(0.71,0.95) * | 0.57(0.39,0.81) ** | 0.92(0.38,3.76) | 0.52(0.32,0.96) ** | 0.42(0.22,0.95) ** |
| Children | 1.37(0.47,4.25) | 1.28(0.71,1.93) | 1.56(0.53,4.94) | 1.57(0.59,1.86) | 1.57(0.47,4.34) | 1.37(0.57,4.25) |
| Others | 1.67(1.61,3.22) * | 1.76(1.52,2.48) * | 2.25(1.70,4.97) * | 1.84(1.46,2.35) ** | 1.67(1.41,3.13) * | 1.67(1.31,3.42) * |
| Need variables | ||||||
| Self-rated health (ref. bad) | 1.31(0.78,1.64) | 1.39(0.23,1.90) | 1.51(0.87,1.63) | 1.37(0.23,1.85) | 2.14(1.82,2.94) ** | 1.41(0.27,1.81) |
| ADL (ref. completely independent) | ||||||
| Relatively independent | 2.32(1.93,4.75) * | 1.45(1.29,2.15) * | 2.14(1.84,4.55) * | 1.64(1.35,2.23) ** | 2.25(1.15,5.26) * | 2.14(1.84,4.75) * |
| Disability | 3.59(2.32,5.32) ** | 1.65(1.07,2.56) *** | 3.59(2.42,5.41) ** | 2.56(1.94,3.16) *** | 3.68(2.27,5.20) * | 3.65(3.16,4.22) *** |
| Model summary: | ||||||
| Nagelkerke R2 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
| χ2 with df = 45 ( | 126.35(<0.0001) | 124.7(<0.0001) | 91.28(<0.0001) | 101.84(<0.0001) | 91.52(0.0004) | 83.95(0.0002) |
| −2Log likelihood | 4781.27 | 1323.18 | 1659.72 | 18197.21 | 1678.63 | 1715.84 |
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. The table presents the final results when all sets of variables were entered at once, for the sake of presentational simplification.