Cargando…

Inequities in home care use among older Canadian adults: Are they corrected by public funding?

BACKGROUND: Although care use should parallel needs, enabling and predisposing circumstances including the socio-demographic inequities of socioeconomic status (SES), gender, or isolation often intervene to diminish care. We examine whether availability of state-funded medical and support services a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vafaei, Afshin, Rodrigues, Ricardo, Ilinca, Stefania, Fors, Stefan, Kadi, Selma, Zolyomi, Eszter, Phillips, Susan P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36730166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280961
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Although care use should parallel needs, enabling and predisposing circumstances including the socio-demographic inequities of socioeconomic status (SES), gender, or isolation often intervene to diminish care. We examine whether availability of state-funded medical and support services at home can rebalance these individual and social inequities, and do this by identifying if and how intersecting social identities predict homecare use among older Canadian adults. METHODS: Using the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) of 30,097 community-dwelling adults aged 45 to 85, we performed recursive partitioning regression tree analysis using Chi-Squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID). Combinations of individual and social characteristics including sociodemographic, family-related, physical and psychological measures and contextual indicators of material and social deprivation were explored as possible predictors of formal and informal care use. RESULTS: Diminished function i.e. increased need, indicated by Activities of Daily Living, was most strongly aligned with formal care use while age, living arrangement, having no partner, depression, self-rated health and chronic medical conditions playing a lesser role in the pathway to use. Notably, sex/gender, were not determinants. Characteristics aligned with informal care were first—need, then country of birth and years since immigration. Both ‘trees’ showed high validity with low risk of misclassification (4.6% and 10.8% for formal and informal care, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although often considered marginalised, women, immigrants, or those of lower SES utilised formal care equitably. Formal care was also differentially available to those without the financial or human resources to receive informal care. Need, primarily medical but also arising from living arrangement, rather than SES or gender predicted formal care, indicating that universal government-funded services may rebalance social and individual inequities in formal care use.