Individual and Contextual Determinants of Social Homecare Usage in Slovenia/ Dispozicijski In Kontekstualni Dejavniki Uporabe Socialne Oskrbe Na Domu

Open access

Abstract

Theory. Social homecare is important for older people, as it enables them to remain in their own homes during worsening health, thus relieving the burden on institutional facilities such as homes for the elderly or nursing homes and hospitals.

Method. A representative survey of social homecare users was employed to assess determinants of the scope of social homecare in Slovenia. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate determinants defined by Andersen’s behavioral model that affect the scope of social homecare.

Results. As expected, need (Functional impairment B = .378, P = 0.000) was the most important explanatory component, followed by availability of informal care network (Lives alone B = -.136, P = 0.000; Has children B = - .142; P = 0.000) and other contextual factors such as total costs of the services (B = -.075; P = 0.003) and temporal availability of services (B=-.075, P=0.012). The model explained 18% of variability in the scope of social homecare.

Conclusion. This study showed that data on the individual level, as opposed to data on an aggregated level, show different determinants of social homecare utilization. Moreover, the results showed that social homecare is especially important in two circumstances: when older people have a high level of need and when they do not have access to informal care networks. Contextual factors had a moderate effect on the scope of social homecare, which shows universal access to the latter at the individual level.

1. Allen MS, Goldscheider F, Cimbrone DA. Gender roles, marital intimacy, and nomination of spouse as primary caregiver. Geront 1999; 39: 150-8.

2. Stoller E. Parental caregiving by adult chidren. J Marriage Fam 1983; 45: 851-8.

3. Stoller EP, Lorna LE. Help with activities of everyday life: sources of support for the noninstitutionalized elderly. Geront 2012; 23: 64-70.

4. Wenger GC. Support networks of older people: a guide for practitioners. Bangor: Centre for social policy research and development, 1994.

5. Nagode M. Dvajset let izvajanja socialno varstvene storitve pomoč na domu v Sloveniji (1991-2011). In: Kuzmanič Korva D, editor. Čas beži, a pušča sledi: 50 let centrov za socialno delo in 15 let Skupnosti centrov za socialno delo. Ljubljana: Skupnost centrov za socialno delo, 2012: 189-212.

6. Hlebec V. Oskrba starih med državo in družino: oskrba na domu. Teor Praksa 2010; 47: 765-85.

7. Hlebec V, Mali J, Filipovič Hrast M. Community care for older people in Slovenia. Anth Notebooks 2014; 20: 5-20.

8. Hlebec V. Kontekstualni dejavniki uporabe oskrbe na domu v Sloveniji. Zdrav Var 2012; 51: 120-7.

9. Aday LA, Andersen RM. A framework for the study of access to medical care. Health Services Res 1974; 9: 208-20.

10. Andersen RM, McCutcheon A, Aday LA, Chiu GY, Bell R. Exploring dimension of access to medical care. Health Services Res 1983; 18: 49-74.

11. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 1995; 36: 1-10.

12. Andersen RM, Newman JF. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Q 2005; 83: 1-28.

13. Bass DM, Noelker. The influence of family caregivers on elder’s use of in-home services: an expanded conceptual framework. J Health Soc Behavior 1987; 28: 184-96.

14. Bookwala J, Zdaniuk B, Burton L, Lind B, Jackson S, Schulz R. Concurrent and long-term predictors of older adults’ use of community-based long-term care services: the caregiver health effects study. J Aging Health 2004; 16: 88-115.

15. Geerlings SW, Pot AM, Twisk JWR, Deeg DJH. Predicting transitions in the use of informal and professional care by older adults. Ageing Soc 2005; 25: 111-30.

16. Geerts J, Van den Boch K. Transitions in formal and informal care utilisation amongst older Europeans: the impact of national contexts. Eur J Ageing 2012; 9: 27-37.

17. Suanet B, Broese van Groenou MI, Van Tilburg TG. Informal and formal home care use among older adults in Europe: can country-differences be explained by societal context and composition? Ageing Soc 2012; 32: 491-515.

18. Denton M. The linkages between informal and formal care of the elderly. Can J Aging 1997; 16: 30-50.

19. Cantor HM. Neighbors and friends: an overlooked resource in the informal support system. Res Aging 1979; 1: 434-63.

20. Chappell N, Blandford A. Informal and formal care: exploring the complementarity. Ageing Soc 1991; 11: 299-317.

21. Penning JM. Hydra revisited: substituting formal for self- and informal in-home care among older adults with disabilities. Geront 2002; 42: 4-16.

22. Davey A, Patsios D. Formal and informal communioty care to older adults: comparative analysis of the United States and Great Britain. J Fam Econ Iss 1999; 20: 271-99.

23. Knežević Hočevar D. community care of older people in rural setting: a case study from Slovenia. Anth Notebooks 2012; 20: 35-50.

24. Kuo T, Torres-Gil FM. Factors affecting utilization of healths services and home and community-based care programs by older Taiwanese in the United States. Res Ageing 2001; 23: 14-36.

25. Stoddart H, Withley E, Harvey I, Sharp D. What determine the use of home care services by elderly people. Health Soc Care Comm 2002; 10: 348-60.

26. Hlebec V, Nagode M, Filipovič Hrast M. Care for older people between state and family: care models among social home care users. Teor Praksa 2014.

27. Nagode M, Lebar L. Izvajanje pomoči na domu: analiza stanja v letu 2012. Ljubljana: IRSSV, 2013.

28. Demaerschalk MF, Vanden Boer LE, Bronselaer JL, Molenberghs G, Declercq AG. The influence of municipal characteristics on the use of informal home care and home care services by the elderly Flemish. Eur J Pub Health 2012; 23: 241-6.

Slovenian Journal of Public Health

The Journal of National Institute of Public Health

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.620
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.488



CiteScore 2017: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.147
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.429

Cited By

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 261 258 72
PDF Downloads 81 81 9