Research Fellow, Re-FIT Research Group, Parc Sanitari Pere Virgili & Vall d'Hebrón Institute of Research (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain.
Formerly at Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE), London, UK.
BMC Geriatr. 2021 Jan 2;21(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01943-8.
Direct payments (DPs) are cash-payments that eligible individuals can receive to purchase care services by themselves. DPs are central to current social care policy in England, but their advantages remain controversial. This controversy is partly due to their lack of historical visibility: DPs were deployed in stages, bundled with other policy instruments (first individual budgets, then personal budgets), and amidst increasing budgetary constraints. As a result, little unequivocal evidence is available about the effectiveness of DPs as an instrument for older people's care. This study aims to partially fill that gap using data obtained during an early evaluation of DP's that took place between 2005 and 07.
Semi-structured 81 face-to-face interviews with older people (and their proxies) using DPs are analyzed. DPs contribution to outcomes was measured using a standardized utility scale. Data on individual characteristics (dependency, informal support) and received services (types and amount of services) was also gathered. Multiple regression analyses were performed between measured outcome gains and individual and service characteristics. A Poisson log-functional form was selected to account for the low mean and positive skew of outcome gains.
Levels of met need compared very favorably to average social care outcomes in the domains of social participation, control over daily living and safety, and user satisfaction was high. Benefit from DPs was particularly affected by the role and function of unpaid care and availability of recruitment support. The freedom to combine funded care packages with self-funded care enhanced the positive impact of the former. The ability to purchase care that deviated from standardized care inputs improved service benefits. Large discrepancies between total care input and that supported through DPs negatively affected outcomes.
The results offer clarity regarding the benefit derived from receiving DPs. They also clarify contested aspects of the policy such as the influence of unpaid care, types of care received, funding levels and the role of wider support arrangements. Tangible benefits may results from direct payments but those benefits are highly dependent on policy implementation practices. Implementation of DPs should pay special attention to the balance between DP funded care and unpaid care.
直接支付(DPs)是符合条件的个人可以自行领取的现金支付,用于购买护理服务。DPs 是当前英国社会护理政策的核心,但它们的优势仍然存在争议。这种争议部分归因于它们缺乏历史可见性:DPs 分阶段部署,与其他政策工具(首先是个人预算,然后是个人预算)捆绑在一起,并在预算限制不断增加的情况下实施。因此,关于 DPs 作为老年人护理工具的有效性,几乎没有确凿的证据。本研究旨在使用 2005 年至 07 年期间进行的 DPs 早期评估中获得的数据部分填补这一空白。
对使用 DPs 的老年人(及其代理人)进行了 81 次半结构化面对面访谈。使用标准化效用量表衡量 DPs 对结果的贡献。还收集了关于个人特征(依赖性、非正式支持)和所接受服务(服务类型和数量)的数据。在测量的结果增益与个人和服务特征之间进行了多元回归分析。为了说明结果增益的均值较低和正偏度,选择了泊松对数函数形式。
与社会参与、日常生活控制和安全以及用户满意度等领域的平均社会护理结果相比,满足需求的水平非常有利。DPs 的收益特别受到无偿护理的角色和功能以及招聘支持的可用性的影响。将资金支持的护理套餐与自费护理相结合的自由增强了前者的积极影响。购买偏离标准化护理投入的护理服务的能力提高了服务收益。总护理投入与 DPs 支持的护理投入之间的巨大差异对结果产生负面影响。
结果提供了关于从接受 DPs 中获得收益的清晰认识。它们还澄清了政策中的一些有争议的方面,例如无偿护理的影响、所接受的护理类型、资金水平以及更广泛的支持安排的作用。直接支付可能会带来切实的收益,但这些收益高度依赖于政策实施实践。DPs 的实施应特别注意 DP 资助的护理和无偿护理之间的平衡。