| Literature DB >> 34072401 |
Jiangang Shi1, Wenwen Hua1, Daizhong Tang1, Ke Xu1, Quanwei Xu1.
Abstract
Based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory and customer satisfaction theory, we constructed a satisfaction model for supply-demand satisfaction for community-based senior care (SSCSC) combined with the psychological perspective of the elderly, and four dimensions of basic living needs (BLNs), living environment (LE), personal traits (PTs), and livability for the aged (LA) were selected to construct the model. The data were obtained from 296 questionnaires from seniors over 50 years old (or completed by relatives on their behalf, according to their actual situation). Twenty-two observed variables were selected for the five latent variables, and their interactions were explored using structural equation modeling. The results showed that LA was the most significant factor influencing SSCSC, and it was followed by BLNs and LE. PTs did not show a direct effect on LA, but they could have an indirect effect on SSCSC through influencing BLNs and LE. Based on the current state of community aging satisfaction, we propose to establish a community elderly care service system based on the basic needs of the elderly population, providing differentiated and refined elderly care services and improving the level of aging-friendly communities. This study provides references for the government to formulate relevant policies and other supply entities to make strategic decisions and has important implications for further enhancing community elderly services to become an important part of the social security system for the elderly.Entities:
Keywords: SEM; community-based senior care; psychological perception; supply–demand satisfaction
Year: 2021 PMID: 34072401 PMCID: PMC8229548 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9060643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Structure of the ACSI model.
Figure 2The model of the SSCSC.
Survey items related to the SSCSC.
| Latent Variable | Observed Variable | Item | Related Documents |
|---|---|---|---|
| BLN | Daily Living | I think the daily living facility system (restrooms, bathrooms, dining rooms, etc.) affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ |
| Health Care | I think the community health care facility system (health care room, rehabilitation training room, etc.) affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ | |
| Health and Fitness | I think the health and fitness facilities system (ping pong room, gym, etc.) affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ | |
| Recreation | I think the community recreational facilities system (chess room, multi-purpose room, audio–visual room, etc.) affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ | |
| Culture and Education | I think the cultural and educational facilities system (reading room, painting and calligraphy room, classroom, etc.) affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| LE | Public Activity Space | I think the overall layout of the public activity space (size, density, accessibility, etc.) affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ |
| Community Road | I think the community road conditions (path quality, directional guidance, etc.) and resting facilities (shade from the sun and rain, etc.) affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ | |
| Community Environmental Safety | I think the community security and safety of the night environment affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| Community Engagement Environment | I think the atmosphere of gathering activities, mutual help and harmony among community residents affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ | |
| LA | Number and Configuration of Facilities | I think the distribution of the number and density of elderly service facilities in the community affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ |
| Aging-Friendly Facilities | I think that the ease and safety of operation for the elderly service facilities in the community affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| Environmental Beauty | I think the public activity space layout, the scenery along the road, and the environment of internal facilities in the community affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ | |
| Aging-Friendly Environment | I think the detailing of resting platforms, positioning instructions, and emergency call buttons in community activities affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| Government Input | I think the government’s financial investment and level of attention in community care affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ | |
| PT | Age | I think the age of the respondent affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | [ |
| Level of Care | I think the respondents’ ability to take care of themselves and the degree to which they need to be cared for affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| Family Support | I think the financial and emotional support of the family affect the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| Education | I think the education level of the respondents affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| Companionship | I think the respondents’ living style (living alone, living with spouse, living with adult children, etc.) affects the supply–demand satisfaction of community-based senior care. | ||
| SSCSC | My overall satisfaction with current community-based senior care services is high. | ||
| Compared to what I expected, my overall satisfaction with current community-based senior care services is high. | |||
| Compared to my ideal level, my overall satisfaction with current community-based senior care services is high. | |||
Basic information of the survey respondents.
| Characteristics | Demographic Variable | Size | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 162 | 54.73 |
| Female | 134 | 45.27 | |
| Age | 50–59 years old | 123 | 41.55 |
| 60–69 years old | 69 | 23.31 | |
| 70–79 years old | 82 | 27.70 | |
| Over 80 years old | 22 | 7.43 | |
| Education | Primary School and Below | 41 | 13.85 |
| Junior High School | 55 | 18.58 | |
| High School | 80 | 27.03 | |
| Specialized Degree | 55 | 18.58 | |
| Bachelor’s degree or above | 65 | 21.96 | |
| Income (RMB) | <3000 | 72 | 24.32 |
| 3000–3999 | 51 | 17.23 | |
| 4000–4999 | 45 | 15.20 | |
| 5000–5999 | 62 | 20.95 | |
| ≥6000 | 66 | 22.30 | |
| Living Situation | Living alone | 31 | 10.47 |
| Living with spouse | 161 | 54.39 | |
| Living with their children | 103 | 34.80 | |
| Others | 1 | 3.38 |
Reliability and validity analysis index values.
| Latent Variable | Observed Variable | Mean | SD | FL | CA | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLNs | BLN1 | 3.42 | 0.867 | 0.698 | 0.762 | 0.841 | 0.515 |
| BLN2 | 3.29 | 1.114 | 0.69 | ||||
| BLN3 | 3.35 | 1.030 | 0.736 | ||||
| BLN4 | 3.63 | 0.966 | 0.709 | ||||
| BLN5 | 3.41 | 1.019 | 0.753 | ||||
| LE | LE1 | 3.34 | 0.951 | 0.724 | 0.605 | 0.832 | 0.553 |
| LE2 | 3.43 | 1.079 | 0.754 | ||||
| LE3 | 3.87 | 0.974 | 0.754 | ||||
| LE4 | 3.58 | 0.905 | 0.741 | ||||
| LA | LA1 | 3.20 | 0.932 | 0.793 | 0.801 | 0.864 | 0.560 |
| LA2 | 3.56 | 1.035 | 0.721 | ||||
| LA3 | 3.70 | 0.898 | 0.719 | ||||
| LA4 | 3.42 | 1.066 | 0.740 | ||||
| LA5 | 3.39 | 1.011 | 0.765 | ||||
| PTs | PT1 | 3.53 | 0.998 | 0.707 | 0.681 | 0.833 | 0.501 |
| PT2 | 3.93 | 1.076 | 0.761 | ||||
| PT3 | 3.84 | 0.960 | 0.694 | ||||
| PT4 | 3.42 | 1.088 | 0.604 | ||||
| PT5 | 3.92 | 0.935 | 0.761 | ||||
| SSCSC | SSCSC1 | 3.48 | 0.848 | 0.804 | 0.805 | 0.885 | 0.720 |
| SSCSC2 | 3.32 | 1.035 | 0.854 | ||||
| SSCSC3 | 3.17 | 1.087 | 0.886 |
Results of the discriminant validity analysis.
| Variables | BLN | LE | LA | PT | SSCSC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLN | 0.818 | ||||
| LE | 0.806 | 0.744 | |||
| LA | 0.603 | 0.677 | 0.748 | ||
| PT | 0.192 | 0.267 | 0.183 | 0.501 | |
| SSCSC | 0.661 | 0.657 | 0.699 | 0.110 | 0.849 |
Structural equation model goodness-of-fit tests.
| Fitting Index | CMIN/DF | CFI | RMSEA | GFI | AGFI | SRMR | NNFI | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | 2.173 | 0.860 | 0.075 | 0.858 | 0.817 | 0.107 | 0.832 | 506.000 |
| Criteria | <3 | >0.8 | ≤0.08 | >0.8 | >0.8 | <0.05 | >0.8 | / |
Figure 3Output results of the SEM. *** Indicates significance at the 0.001 level; ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level, and * indicates significance at the 0.05 level.
Standard regression path coefficients of the SEM and hypothesis validation results.
| Hypotheses | Path | Path Coefficients | T-Value | Significance | Hypothesis Supported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | BLN→SSCSC | 0.379 | 4.512 | *** | Yes |
| H2 | LE→SSCSC | 0.117 | 2.985 | ** | Yes |
| H3 | PT→BLN | 0.210 | 3.709 | *** | Yes |
| H4 | PT→LE | 0.436 | 3.960 | *** | Yes |
| H5 | BLN→LA | 0.528 | 5.643 | *** | Yes |
| H6 | LE→LA | 0.250 | 2.412 | * | Yes |
| H7 | PT→LA | −0.031 | −0.284 | Insignificant | No |
| H8 | LA→SSCSC | 0.558 | 9.937 | *** | Yes |
*** Indicates significance at the 0.001 level; ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level, and * indicates significance at the 0.05 level.