scholarly journals Factors to influence the family caregivers’ burden with the community-dwelling elderly under long-term care insurance system: comparison among sub-dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
한은정 ◽  
권진희 ◽  
이정석 ◽  
나영균
Keyword(s):  
Family Caregivers ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Insurance System ◽  
The Family ◽  
Long Term Care Insurance

Familiengerechtigkeit in der sozialen Pflegeversicherung

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 627-641
Keyword(s):  
Social Insurance ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Social Insurance System ◽  
Insurance System ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Family ◽  
Long Term Care Insurance

Zusammenfassung Ausgehend von Beiträgen des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats für Familienfragen zum Verhältnis Familie und Sozialversicherung beleuchten wir in diesem Aufsatz die Frage der Familiengerechtigkeit in der sozialen Pflegeversicherung. Ein Großteil der Pflegearbeit in Deutschland wird innerhalb der Familie erbracht, gleichzeitig gewährleisten Familien die nachhaltige Finanzierung der Pflegeversicherung. Demographische Entwicklungen und veränderte Verantwortungskonzepte stellen diese Leistungserbringung vor Herausforderungen. Wir argumentieren, dass Familien auf der Beitrags- wie auf der Leistungsseite mehr ­Unterstützung benötigen, z. B. bei der arbeitsrechtlichen und finanziellen Absicherung pflegender Angehöriger, um die bestehende Schieflage zwischen stationärer und häuslicher Versorgung zu mildern. Abstract: The Role of Families in the Social Insurance System Based on previous reports of the Scientific Advisory Board for Family Affairs on the role of families in the social insurance system, this essay examines the aspect of family fairness in long-term care insurance. The majority of care work in Germany is provided within the family, while at the same time families ensure sustainable financing of long-term care insurance. Demographic change and changing concepts of responsibility challenge these modes of care provision. We argue that families need more support on the contribution as well as the benefit side, e. g. by securing labour rights and financial protection of caring relatives to alleviate the existing imbalances between institutional and home care.

scholarly journals Aging-In-Place Preference and Institutionalization Among Japanese Older Adults: A 7-Year Longitudinal Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Nakagawa ◽  
Taiji Noguchi ◽  
Ayane Komatsu ◽  
Masumi Ishihara ◽  
Tami Saito
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Aging In Place ◽  
Place Preference ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Insurance System ◽  
Long Term Care Insurance ◽  
Japanese Older Adults

Abstract Background In Asia, where autonomous decision-making is not well accepted, little is known about whether and how individuals’ preferences are considered when deciding where they receive care. This study examined the longitudinal association of aging-in-place preference when bedridden with institutionalization among Japanese older adults. Methods We analyzed nationally representative data of 1,290 community-dwelling older adults aged 70 and above, applying the multiple imputation method. Baseline data were collected in 1999, shortly before the long-term care insurance system was introduced. The outcome was measured as self- or proxy-reported years of institutionalization over seven years. The explanatory variable was the aging-in-place preference. Participants were asked about their desired place of care (facility, home, or other) when bedridden. Covariates were sociodemographic and health-related factors. We used Cox proportional hazards models and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the association of aging-in-place preference when bedridden with institutionalization. Results Seventy-eight respondents (6.0%) were institutionalized during the follow-up period. Compared to individuals preferring to reside in long-term care facilities when bedridden (48.7%), those preferring to stay in their homes (39.6%) were less likely to be institutionalized, even after adjusting for relevant covariates (HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.27–0.79 for model 1 including residential status; HR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.27–0.76 for model 2 including marital status and co-resident children). Conclusions Our findings suggest that individuals’ aging-in-place preferences are considered under the long-term care insurance system. Individuals’ preferences should be shared by families and clinicians when deciding the place of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document