IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujoag/v19y2022i4d10.1007_s10433-022-00738-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review to identify the use of stated preference research in the field of older adult care

Author

Listed:
  • Lea de Jong

    (Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH))

  • Jan Zeidler

    (Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH))

  • Kathrin Damm

    (Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH))

Abstract

In the design of long-term care systems, preferences can serve as an essential indication to better tailor services to the needs, wishes and expectations of its consumers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and synthesize available evidence on long-term care preferences that have been elicited by quantitative stated-preference methods. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for the period 2000 to 2020 with an extensive set of search terms. Two independent researchers judged the eligibility of studies. The final number of included studies was 66, conducted in 19 different countries. Studies were systematized according to their content focus as well as the survey method used. Irrespective of the heterogeneity of studies with respect to research focus, study population, sample size and study design, some consistent findings emerged. When presented with a set of long-term care options, the majority of study participants preferred to “age in place” and make use of informal or home-based care. With increasing severity of physical and cognitive impairments, preferences shifted toward the exclusive use of formal care. Next to the severity of care needs, the influence on preferences of a range of other independent variables such as income, family status and education were tested; however, none showed consistent effects across all studies. The inclusion of choice-based elicitation techniques provides an impression of how studies operationalized long-term care and measured preferences. Future research should investigate how preferences might change over time and generations as well as people’s willingness and realistic capabilities of providing care.

Suggested Citation

  • Lea de Jong & Jan Zeidler & Kathrin Damm, 2022. "A systematic review to identify the use of stated preference research in the field of older adult care," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1005-1056, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujoag:v:19:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10433-022-00738-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10433-022-00738-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10433-022-00738-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10433-022-00738-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ziyue Huang & Qingyue Liu & Hongdao Meng & Danping Liu & Debra Dobbs & Kathryn Hyer & Kyaien O Conner, 2018. "Factors associated with willingness to enter long-term care facilities among older adults in Chengdu, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Liangwen Zhang & Yanbing Zeng & Ya Fang, 2017. "The effect of health status and living arrangements on long term care models among older Chinese: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    4. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    5. Susan Joy & Emily Little & Nisa Maruthur & Tanjala Purnell & John Bridges, 2013. "Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 877-892, October.
    6. Marjolein I. Broese van Groenou & Alice Boer, 2016. "Providing informal care in a changing society," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 271-279, September.
    7. Litva, Andrea & Coast, Joanna & Donovan, Jenny & Eyles, John & Shepherd, Michael & Tacchi, Jo & Abelson, Julia & Morgan, Kieran, 2002. "'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1825-1837, June.
    8. Yong Wei & Liangwen Zhang, 2020. "Analysis of the Influencing Factors on the Preferences of the Elderly for the Combination of Medical Care and Pension in Long-Term Care Facilities Based on the Andersen Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-14, July.
    9. K. Klose & S. Kreimeier & U. Tangermann & I. Aumann & K. Damm, 2016. "Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Walsh, Sharon & O'Shea, Eamon & Pierse, Tom & Kennelly, Brendan & Keogh, Fiona & Doherty, Edel, 2020. "Public preferences for home care services for people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment on personhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    11. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    12. Caro, Francis G. & Yee, Christine & Levien, Samantha & Gottlieb, Alison S. & Winter, Joachim & McFadden, Daniel L. & Ho, Teck H., 2012. "Choosing among residential options: Results of a vignette experiment," Munich Reprints in Economics 19970, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    13. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    14. Chloé Gervès & Martine Bellanger & Joël Ankri, 2013. "Economic Analysis of the Intangible Impacts of Informal Care for People with Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Mental Disorders," Post-Print hal-03150411, HAL.
    15. T. Lehnert & O. H. Günther & A. Hajek & S. G. Riedel-Heller & H. H. König, 2018. "Preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services in Germany: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1213-1223, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    2. Tongbo Deng & Yafan Fan & Mengdi Wu & Min Li, 2022. "Older People’s Long-Term Care Preferences in China: The Impact of Living with Grandchildren on Older People’s Willingness and Family Decisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Amilon, Anna & Kjær, Agnete Aslaug & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu, 2022. "Trust in the publicly financed care system and willingness to pay for long-term care: A discrete choice experiment in Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    4. He, Alex Jingwei & Qian, Jiwei & Chan, Wai-sum & Chou, Kee-lee, 2021. "Preferences for private long-term care insurance products in a super-ageing society: A discrete choice experiment in Hong Kong," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    5. Walsh, Sharon & O'Shea, Eamon & Pierse, Tom & Kennelly, Brendan & Keogh, Fiona & Doherty, Edel, 2020. "Public preferences for home care services for people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment on personhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    6. Lea de Jong & Torben Schmidt & Jona Theodor Stahmeyer & Sveja Eberhard & Jan Zeidler & Kathrin Damm, 2023. "Willingness to provide informal care to older adults in Germany: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 425-436, April.
    7. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    8. Koji Kanda & Hirofumi Sakurazawa & Takahiko Yoshida, 2022. "International Comparison of Social Support Policies on Long-Term Care in Workplaces in Aging Societies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Loi Tan Nguyen & Phouthakannha Nantharath & Eungoo Kang, 2022. "The Sustainable Care Model for an Ageing Population in Vietnam: Evidence from a Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Chen, Gang & Khadka, Jyoti & Milte, Rachel & Mpundu-Kaambwa, Christine & Woods, Taylor-Jade & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2021. "A preference for quality: Australian general public's willingness to pay for home and residential aged care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    11. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    12. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    13. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    14. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    15. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    16. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    17. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    18. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    20. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujoag:v:19:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10433-022-00738-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.