↓ Skip to main content

The determinants of the propensity to receive publicly funded home care services for the elderly in Canada: a panel two-stage residual inclusion approach

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The determinants of the propensity to receive publicly funded home care services for the elderly in Canada: a panel two-stage residual inclusion approach
Published in
Health Economics Review, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13561-016-0086-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo Mery, Walter P. Wodchis, Audrey Laporte

Abstract

The role of Home Care (HC) services for the elderly will be increasingly important in meeting populations' future needs for care. HC services include Home Health Care (HHC) and Homemaking/Personal Support (HMPS), distinction rarely seen in the literature. This paper argues that it is important to distinguish between these types of HC, since the factors that drive the likelihood of the receipt of each type of care may differ, and also to investigate the interrelationship between them. We explored the interrelationship between receipt of publicly funded HMPS and HHC, and the determinants of the receipt of each type of services. A Panel Two-Stage Residual Inclusion approach was applied to estimate the likelihood of the receipt of HC services using data for those aged 65 and over from 9 biannual waves of the Canadian National Population Health Survey (1994-95 to 2010-11). We found that there are in fact differences in the determinants of the likelihood of HHC and HMPS receipt. Moreover, receipt of publicly funded HMPS was found to be complementary with receipt of publicly funded HHC services after adjusting for functional and health status. Dependence on help with activities of daily living, health status, household arrangement, and income were found to be determinants of the propensity to receive both publicly funded HHC and HMPS services. This study aims to contribute to the existent literature by taking a step toward explicitly modelling the potential interaction between the determinants of the receipt of different types of HC services simultaneously, as a system. Our methodological approach, a Panel Two-Stage Residual Inclusion method, seems to effectively address problems that are known to be a source of bias in the literature.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 23 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,444,553
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#332
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,732
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.