Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organization, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Health Policy. 2021 Mar;125(3):363-374. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.11.002. Epub 2020 Nov 8.
Internationally, deinstitutionalization and the provision of community-based care are growing policy aims. Several developed countries have thus introduced cash-for-care schemes, which turn the traditional funding stream from the perspective of the care provider around, giving purchasing power to care users. This review explores whether cash-for-care schemes encourage the shift towards deinstitutionalization.
Ten databases covering medical, nursing and social science journals were systematically screened up to July 10, 2020. Only peer-reviewed articles written in English or French and containing empirical evidence on the uptake of care services in a cash-for-care scheme were included.
The search resulted in 6,865 hits of which 27 articles were retained. Most studies took place in the United Kingdom or the United States. Overall, the search showed mixed results concerning the uptake of the different types of community-based care.
Evidence demonstrating a higher uptake of informal, respite or home care individually, is scarce and inconclusive. A reduction in residential care and an uptake of services in the community can, with caution, be noted. However, contextual and individual factors can affect the way deinstitutionalization takes place and which community-based services are chosen. Future research should therefore focus on the underlying processes and influencing factors, in order to obtain a clear view of the shift towards deinstitutionalization.
在国际上,去机构化和提供基于社区的护理是日益增长的政策目标。因此,一些发达国家引入了现金换护理计划,将传统的从护理提供者角度出发的资金流转变为护理使用者的购买力。本综述探讨了现金换护理计划是否鼓励向去机构化转变。
系统筛选了截至 2020 年 7 月 10 日涵盖医学、护理和社会科学期刊的 10 个数据库。仅纳入以英文或法文撰写、包含现金换护理计划中护理服务使用情况的实证证据的同行评审文章。
搜索结果产生了 6865 次命中,其中保留了 27 篇文章。大多数研究都发生在英国或美国。总体而言,搜索结果显示了关于不同类型的社区护理的使用情况的混合结果。
单独证明非正式护理、暂息护理或家庭护理的使用率较高的证据很少且没有定论。可以谨慎地注意到,居住护理的减少和社区服务的使用增加。然而,背景和个人因素会影响去机构化的方式以及选择哪种社区服务。因此,未来的研究应侧重于潜在的过程和影响因素,以便清楚地了解向去机构化的转变。