Suppr超能文献

居家护理结果:护理提供者重要吗?

Home-Based Care Outcomes: Does the Care Provider Matter?

作者信息

Coe Norma B, Sun Chuxuan, Van Houtven Courtney H, Basu Anirban, Konetzka R Tamara

机构信息

Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Health Econ. 2025 Aug;34(8):1487-1506. doi: 10.1002/hec.4972. Epub 2025 Apr 28.

Abstract

Long-term services in the home are predominately provided by family or friends, with a growing proportion of individuals receiving formal care, or paid care by a professional, or a combination of both. However, the relative benefits to the care recipient of who provides the care are largely unknown. A person's use of formal and family care is affected by factors that also may affect their outcomes, complicating the estimation of any causal relationship. Using the 2002-2018 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we examine three types of home-based care combinations: family only, formal only, and both formal and family care. We use an instrumental variables strategy, using family structure as instruments for both formal care and the combination of formal and family care, to estimate the plausibly causal impact of the care provider on self-reported mental and physical health outcomes. We find that, once the endogeneity of the care provider is accounted for, having both formal and family care leads to better self-rated health, mobility and lower depression compared to people receiving family care only. Receiving formal care only does not affect care recipient outcomes compared to receiving family care only. These results are robust to several sensitivity analyses, including different instrument specifications, subsamples of care recipients that do not have a spouse/partner, among women care recipients, and changing the timing of the measurement of the outcomes. These findings are important to consider as we strive to best meet the growing demand for person-centered, high-quality long-term care in the least restrictive setting possible.

摘要

家庭中的长期照护主要由家人或朋友提供,接受正规照护(即由专业人员提供的有偿照护)或两者结合的个体比例在不断增加。然而,照护提供者对接受照护者的相对益处很大程度上尚不清楚。一个人对正规照护和家庭照护的使用受到一些因素的影响,而这些因素也可能影响其照护结果,这使得对任何因果关系的估计变得复杂。利用2002 - 2018年健康与退休研究(HRS),我们研究了三种类型的居家照护组合:仅家庭照护、仅正规照护以及正规照护与家庭照护两者结合。我们采用工具变量策略,将家庭结构作为正规照护以及正规照护与家庭照护结合的工具变量,来估计照护提供者对自我报告的身心健康结果的合理因果影响。我们发现,一旦考虑到照护提供者的内生性,与仅接受家庭照护的人相比,同时接受正规照护和家庭照护会带来更好的自评健康状况、行动能力以及更低的抑郁水平。与仅接受家庭照护相比,仅接受正规照护不会影响接受照护者的结果。这些结果在多项敏感性分析中都很稳健有关的敏感性分析,包括不同的工具变量设定、没有配偶/伴侣的接受照护者子样本、女性接受照护者,以及改变结果测量的时间。在我们努力尽可能在限制最少的环境中最好地满足对以个人为中心的高质量长期照护日益增长的需求时,这些发现很重要,值得考虑。

相似文献

1
Home-Based Care Outcomes: Does the Care Provider Matter?居家护理结果:护理提供者重要吗?
Health Econ. 2025 Aug;34(8):1487-1506. doi: 10.1002/hec.4972. Epub 2025 Apr 28.
6
Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use.减少持续吸烟危害的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 13;10(10):CD005231. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005231.pub3.

本文引用的文献

6
Reimagining Financing and Payment of Long-Term Care.重新构想长期护理的融资和支付方式。
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022 Feb;23(2):220-224. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.11.030. Epub 2021 Dec 20.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验