| Literature DB >> 35360640 |
Chengcheng Wang1, Fanyu Zhang1, Chao Pan2, Shuyi Guo3, Xianghong Gong1, Dong Yang4.
Abstract
With the accelerating aging of the population and the worsening psychological conditions of older people, the traditional mode of family support for the elderly in China does not always meet the physical and psychological needs of the elderly, and more social support modes for the elderly are needed. Based on 3,513 valid questionnaires on the long-term care and protection needs of Chinese residents, this paper uses a logit regression model to analyze the factors influencing the willingness of the elderly to choose nursing care. The results show that intergenerational family support for the elderly is a significant psychological driver on the willingness of the elderly to choose nursing care. Compared with the elderly living with family, empty nesters or older people living alone are more inclined to select nursing care when they have difficulties taking care of themselves. The physical health of the elderly affects their willingness to choose nursing care, and elderly individuals with more hospitalizations are less likely to select nursing care. In addition, elderly females who are relatively young, have a high level of education, have a high income, have a nursing home near the residence, and are already covered by medical insurance are more willing to choose nursing care. The results of this study are of great importance for improving the medical services and aging care services for the elderly and providing theoretical support for alleviating the psychological and social pressure brought by population aging.Entities:
Keywords: China; intergenerational support; nursing care; psychological and social support; willingness
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360640 PMCID: PMC8963335 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865276
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Questionnaire sample information.
| Variable | Type | Category | Count | Percent |
| Nursing Care Willingness | Categorical | Willingness | 1,842 | 52.43 |
| No Willingness | 999 | 28.44 | ||
| Never thought | 672 | 19.13 | ||
| Gender | Categorical | Male | 1,197 | 34.07 |
| Female | 2,316 | 65.93 | ||
| Age(years) | Continuous | <60 | 746 | 21.24 |
| 60-69 | 1,437 | 40.90 | ||
| 70-79 | 886 | 25.22 | ||
| ≥80 | 444 | 12.64 | ||
| Marital Status | Categorical | Married | 2,655 | 75.58 |
| Widowed | 721 | 20.52 | ||
| Divorced | 94 | 2.68 | ||
| Never married | 43 | 1.22 | ||
| Education | Categorical | <Primary | 314 | 8.94 |
| Primary | 769 | 21.89 | ||
| Year 6 to 12 | 2,006 | 57.10 | ||
| >Year 12 | 424 | 12.07 | ||
| Monthly Income | Continuous | <1,000 | 1,014 | 28.86 |
| 1,000-2,999 | 1,479 | 42.10 | ||
| ≥3,000 | 1,020 | 29.04 | ||
| Coresidence | Categorical | Coresidence | 274 | 8.13 |
| Non-Coresidence | 3,098 | 91.87 | ||
| Hospital Times | Categorical | 0 | 2,508 | 71.39 |
| 1 | 676 | 19.24 | ||
| 2 | 213 | 6.06 | ||
| 3 | 66 | 1.88 | ||
| 4 | 50 | 1.42 | ||
| Nursing Care Nearby | Categorical | Yes | 1,249 | 35.55 |
| No | 1,278 | 36.38 | ||
| Unknown | 986 | 28.07 | ||
| Insurance | Categorical | Insured | 3,397 | 96.70 |
| Uninsured | 116 | 3.30 |
FIGURE 1Willingness to aged care by demography.
Variable descriptions.
| Variable | Full name | Measure | |
| Dependent variable | Nur | Nursing Care Willingness | 1: Willingness; 0: No Willingness or Never thought |
| Explanatory variable | Cor | Co-residence | 1: Coresidence; 0: Non-Coresidence |
| Hos | Hospital Times | 0: Zero times; 1: One time; 2: Two times; 3: Three times; 4: More than four times | |
| Ins | Insurance | 1: Insured; 0: Uninsured | |
| Gen | Gender | 1: Male; 0: Female | |
| Age | Age (years) | Retain the original data | |
| Mar | Marital Status | 1: Married; 0: Widowed or Divorced or Never married | |
| Edu | Education | In the order of options 1 to 8 | |
| Min | Monthly Income | Retain the original data | |
| Nea | Nursing Care Nearby | 1: Yes; 0: No or unclear |
Baseline regression results.
| Variable | Coef. | Odds Ratio | Std. Err. | P>|z| |
| Cor | –0.2221 | 0.8008 | 0.1054 | 0.091 |
| Hos | –0.1113 | 0.8947 | 0.0400 | 0.013 |
| Ins | 0.3418 | 1.4074 | 0.2881 | 0.095 |
| Gen | –0.3344 | 0.7158 | 0.0563 | 0.000 |
| Age | –0.0102 | 0.9899 | 0.0042 | 0.018 |
| Mar | –0.0379 | 0.9628 | 0.0901 | 0.685 |
| Edu | 0.2308 | 1.2596 | 0.0400 | 0.000 |
| Min | 0.0001 | 1.0001 | 0.0000) | 0.000 |
| Nea | 0.2200 | 1.2461 | 0.0923 | 0.003 |
| Constant | –0.3451 | 0.7081 | 0.2761 | 0.376 |
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Results for robustness test with an alternative model.
| Variable | Coef. | Std. Err. | Z | P>|z| |
| Cor | –0.1373 | 0.0809 | –1.70 | 0.089 |
| Hos | –0.0692 | 0.0277 | –2.50 | 0.012 |
| Ins | 0.2135 | 0.1253 | 1.70 | 0.088 |
| Gen | –0.2059 | 0.0490 | –4.20 | 0.000 |
| Age | –0.0063 | 0.0027 | –2.34 | 0.019 |
| Mar | –0.0222 | 0.0582 | –0.38 | 0.703 |
| Edu | 0.1434 | 0.0196 | 7.32 | 0.000 |
| Min | 0.0001 | 0.0000 | 3.30 | 0.001 |
| Nea | 0.1377 | 0.0460 | 3.00 | 0.003 |
| Constant | –0.2172 | 0.2420 | –0.90 | 0.370 |
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Results for robustness test with an alternative measure.
| Variable | Coef. | Std. Err. | Z | P>|z| |
| Cor | –0.2395 | 0.1315 | –1.82 | 0.069 |
| Hos | –0.1131 | 0.0447 | –2.53 | 0.011 |
| Ins | 0.3839 | 0.2036 | 1.89 | 0.059 |
| Gen | –0.3135 | 0.0782 | –4.01 | 0.000 |
| Age | –0.0078 | 0.0042 | –1.87 | 0.062 |
| Mar | –0.0746 | 0.0953 | –0.78 | 0.434 |
| Edu | 0.2527 | 0.0306 | 8.25 | 0.000 |
| Min_new | 0.00003 | 0.0000 | 3.41 | 0.001 |
| Nea | 0.2181 | 0.0742 | 2.94 | 0.003 |
| Constant | –0.5374 | 0.3830 | –1.40 | 0.161 |
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.