RODRIGUES Ricardo, ILINCA Stefania, SCHMIDT Andrea
Publisher:
European Commission
Publication year:
2014
Pagination:
39
Place of publication:
Brussels
There are significant differences across social protection systems in Europe in the scope, breadth and depth of coverage of the risk to need long-term care in old-age. Together with other factors, such as education, household structure or societal values regarding care for frail older people, these differences can have a significant impact on the use of long-term care. Using SHARE data, this Research Note compares differences between European countries in the use of long-term care across income groups, for older people living at home. It analyses not only inequalities in the use of long-term care, but also differences in use that persist after differences in need have been taken into consideration, i.e. horizontal inequity. For this purpose, concentration indices, concentration curves and horizontal inequity indices are estimated for home care services and informal care. The countries analysed here are Austria, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Denmark, Greece, Belgium and Czech Republic. The findings suggest that differences in use of home care services across income groups mostly reflect differences in need between those same groups. For informal care, the differences in use persist even after accounting for needs, and less affluent individuals are much more likely to use informal care. Some possible causes for these differences and policy implications are considered.
There are significant differences across social protection systems in Europe in the scope, breadth and depth of coverage of the risk to need long-term care in old-age. Together with other factors, such as education, household structure or societal values regarding care for frail older people, these differences can have a significant impact on the use of long-term care. Using SHARE data, this Research Note compares differences between European countries in the use of long-term care across income groups, for older people living at home. It analyses not only inequalities in the use of long-term care, but also differences in use that persist after differences in need have been taken into consideration, i.e. horizontal inequity. For this purpose, concentration indices, concentration curves and horizontal inequity indices are estimated for home care services and informal care. The countries analysed here are Austria, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Denmark, Greece, Belgium and Czech Republic. The findings suggest that differences in use of home care services across income groups mostly reflect differences in need between those same groups. For informal care, the differences in use persist even after accounting for needs, and less affluent individuals are much more likely to use informal care. Some possible causes for these differences and policy implications are considered.
Subject terms:
long term conditions, long term care, home care, health inequalities, older people, comparative studies;
Journal of Integrated Care, 13(2), April 2005, pp.13-21.
Publisher:
Emerald
Presents a comparison of the views of staff working in 18 integrated care settings, undertaken as part of the PROCARE study of integrated health and social care. The data reveals commonalities across the nine European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, UK, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands). Increased job satisfaction was an advantage of integrated working, but respondents also reported difficulties in working with hospitals or medical professionals, and continued barriers to integrated working generally. Single standalone organisations such as home care teams reported the clearest benefits from integrated working, while cross-agency models continued to encounter significant barriers to health and social care integration.
Presents a comparison of the views of staff working in 18 integrated care settings, undertaken as part of the PROCARE study of integrated health and social care. The data reveals commonalities across the nine European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, UK, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands). Increased job satisfaction was an advantage of integrated working, but respondents also reported difficulties in working with hospitals or medical professionals, and continued barriers to integrated working generally. Single standalone organisations such as home care teams reported the clearest benefits from integrated working, while cross-agency models continued to encounter significant barriers to health and social care integration.
Subject terms:
home care, integrated services, interagency cooperation, interprofessional relations, job satisfaction, older people, social care, social care provision, staff, attitudes, health;
Content type:
research
Location(s):
Austria, Denmark, Greece, Europe, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom
Provides a reference source for various modes of care (both formal and informal) for older people throughout Europe. Each chapter follows the same format and covers: demography; socio-political and administrative background; social security and pensions; housing; health care; mental health care; residential care; personal social services; voluntary care agencies and support organisations; leisure pursuits and education; and older people in rural areas.
Provides a reference source for various modes of care (both formal and informal) for older people throughout Europe. Each chapter follows the same format and covers: demography; socio-political and administrative background; social security and pensions; housing; health care; mental health care; residential care; personal social services; voluntary care agencies and support organisations; leisure pursuits and education; and older people in rural areas.
Subject terms:
housing, informal care, leisure, leisure activities, mental health services, older people, pensions, population, residential care, rural areas, social policy, social care provision, voluntary organisations, benefits, care homes, comparative studies, demographics, education, health care;