Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:09:37.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in the informal and formal home-care use of older adults in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2012

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2015

JOUKJE C. SWINKELS ,
BIANCA SUANET ,
DORLY J. H. DEEG  and
MARJOLEIN I. BROESE VAN GROENOU
JOUKJE C. SWINKELS*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BIANCA SUANET
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
DORLY J. H. DEEG
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Psychiatry, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
MARJOLEIN I. BROESE VAN GROENOU
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Joukje Swinkels, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: j.c.swinkels@vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates trends in, and the interdependence of, the use of informal and formal home care of community-dwelling older people over the last two decades in the context of governmental reform of long-term care services and modernisation of informal relationships. Seven observations of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam covering the time span between 1992 and 2012 were analysed using multi-level logistic regression analysis. The sample entailed 9,585 observations from 3,574 respondents, aged between 65 and 85 years and living independently at each time of measurement. Measures included formal and informal care use, health, physical and cognitive limitations, socio-demographics, partner status, social network, privately paid help and sense of mastery. Results showed that between 1992 and 2012, formal home-care use increased slightly while there was a large decrease in the use of informal care. Multivariate multi-level logistic regression analyses showed a substitution effect between formal and informal care use which decreased over time. Analyses also showed improved cognitive functioning, increased partner availability and social network size, as well as increased use of privately paid care over time. Nevertheless, these positive trends did not explain the large decrease in informal care use. The results regarding informal care use suggest a societal trend of weakened informal solidarity, reflecting increased individualisation and increased availability of formal home care. The decreased substitution effect suggests that, in agreement with current reforms of long-term care, complementary or supplementary forms of care use may be more common in the near future.

Keywords

home-care servicesinformal carefunctional limitationstrendsLongitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam (LASA)
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 36 , Issue 9 , October 2016 , pp. 1870 - 1890
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, G. 2008. Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships, 15, 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. and Newman, J. F. 2005. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Quarterly, 83. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00428.x.Google Scholar
Bolin, K., Lindgren, B. and Lundborg, P. 2008. Informal and formal care among single-living elderly in Europe. Health Economics, 17, 3, 393–409.Google Scholar
Bonsang, E. 2009. Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? Journal of Health Economics, 28, 1, 143–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bromley, M. C. and Blieszner, R. 1997. Planning for the long-term care: filial behavior and relationship quality of adult children with independent parents. Family Relations, 46, 2, 155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherlin, A. J. 2004. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 4, 848–61.Google Scholar
Cooney, T. M. and Dykstra, P. A. 2011. Family obligations and support behaviour: a United States–Netherlands comparison. Ageing & Society, 31, 6, 1026–50.Google Scholar
Da Roit, B. 2012. The Netherlands: the struggle between universalism and cost containment. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20, 3, 228–37.Google Scholar
Da Roit, B. 2013. Long-term care reforms in the Netherlands. In Ranci, C. and Pavolini, E. (eds), Reforms in Long-term Care Policies in Europe. Springer, New York, 97–115.Google Scholar
Fingerman, K., Pillemer, K., Silverstein, M. and Suitor, J. J. 2012. The Baby Boomers’ intergenerational relationships. The Gerontologist, 52, 2, 199–209.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. 1975. Mini-mental state: a practical method for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 3, 189–98.Google Scholar
Freedman, V. A., Martin, L. G. and Shoeni, R. F. 2002. Recent trends in disability and functioning among older adults in the United States: a systematic review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 24, 3137–46.Google Scholar
Galenkamp, H., Braam, A. W., Huisman, M. and Deeg, D. J. H. 2013. Seventeen-year time trend in poor self-rated health in older adults: changing contributions of chronic diseases and disability. European Journal of Public Health, 23, 3, 511–7.Google Scholar
Gans, D. and Silverstein, M. 2006. Norms of filial responsibility for aging parents across time and generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 4, 961–76.Google Scholar
Geerlings, S. W., Pot, A. M., Twisk, J. W. and Deeg, D. J. 2005. Predicting transitions in the use of informal and professional care by older adults. Ageing & Society, 25, 1, 111–30.Google Scholar
Grootegoed, E. and Van Dijk, D. 2012. The return of the family? Welfare state retrenchment and client autonomy in long-term care. Journal of Social Policy, 41, 4, 677–94.Google Scholar
Guberman, N., Lavoie, J.-P., Blein, L. and Olazabal, I. 2012. Baby Boom caregivers: care in the era of individualization. The Gerontologist, 52, 2, 210–8.Google Scholar
Hox, J. J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis, Techniques and Applications. Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huisman, M., Poppelaars, J., Van der Horst, M., Beekman, A. T. F., Brug, J., Van Tilburg, T. G., and Deeg, D. J. H. 2011. Cohort profile: the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 4, 868–76.Google Scholar
Johansson, L., Sundström, G. and Hassing, L. B. 2003. State provision down, offspring's up: the reverse substitution of old-age care in Sweden. Ageing & Society, 23, 3, 269–80.Google Scholar
Katz, S., Ford, A. B. and Moskowitz, R. W. 1963. Studies of illness in the aged. The Index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 12, 914–9.Google Scholar
Kriegsman, D., Deeg, D., Eijk, J. van, Penninx, B. and Boeke, A. 1997. Do disease specific characteristics add to the explanation of mobility limitations in patients with different chronic diseases? A study in The Netherlands. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 51, 6, 676–85.Google Scholar
Li, L. W. 2005. Longitudinal changes in the amount of informal care among publicly paid home care recipients. The Gerontologist, 45, 4, 465–73.Google Scholar
Litwin, H. and Attias-Donfut, C. 2009. The inter-relationship between formal and informal care: a study in France and Israel. Ageing & Society, 29, 1, 71–91.Google Scholar
Lundsgaard, J. 2005. Consumer direction and choice in long-term care for older persons, including payments for informal care: how can it help improve care outcomes, employment and fiscal sustainability? OECD Health Working Paper 20, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. and Krout, J. 1998. Discretion and service use among older adults: the behavioural model revisited. The Gerontologist, 38, 2, 159–68.Google Scholar
Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Roemer, C. and Kondratowitz, H. J. 2005. Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 6, 863–82.Google Scholar
Parker, M. G., Ahacic, K. and Thorslund, M. 2005. Health changes among Swedish oldest old: prevalence rates from 1992 and 2002 show increasing health problems. Journals of Gerontology: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 60, 10, 1351–5.Google Scholar
Patsios, D. 2008. The impact of the National Health Service and Community Care Act (NHSCCA) 1990 on the ‘typologies of care’ of older people with functional dependencies living at home in Britain (1980–2001). Radical Statistics, 96, 1–12.Google Scholar
Pearlin, L. I. and Schooler, C. 1978. The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 19, 1, 2–21.Google Scholar
Pickard, L. 2012. Substitution between formal and informal care: a ‘natural experiment’ in social policy in Britain between 1985 and 2000. Ageing & Society, 32, 7, 1147–75.Google Scholar
Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S. 2002. Older adults’ preference for informal, formal and mixed support for future care needs: a comparison of Germany and the United States. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 54, 4, 291–314.Google Scholar
Ryan, L., Smith, J., Antonucci, T. and Jackson, J. 2012. Cohort differences in the availability of informal caregivers: are the Boomers at risk? The Gerontologist, 52, 2, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smits, C., Deeg, D. J. H. and Jonker, C. 1997. Cognitive and emotional predictors of disablement in older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 9, 2, 204–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snijders, T. A. B. and Bosker, R. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Soede, A. 2012. Tevreden met pensioen. Veranderende inkomens en behoeften bij ouderen [Satisfied with One's Pension. Changing Incomes and Financial Needs of Older Adults]. The National Institute for Social Research, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Suanet, B., Broese Van Groenou, M. I. and Van Tilburg, T. G. 2012. Informal and formal home-care use among older adults in Europe: can cross-national differences be explained by societal context and composition? Ageing & Society, 32, 3, 491–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suanet, B., Van Tilburg, T. G. and Broese van Groenou, M. I. 2013. Non-kin in older adults’ personal networks: more important among later cohorts? Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 68, 4, 633–43.Google Scholar
Van Gool, C. H., Picavet, H. S. J., Deeg, D. J. H., Klerk, M. M. J. de, Nusselder, W. J. D., Boxtel, M. P. J. van, Wong, A. and Hoeymans, N. 2011. Trends in activity limitations: the Dutch older population between 1990 and 2007. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 4, 1056–76.Google Scholar
Van Tilburg, T. G. 1998. Interviewer effects in the measurement of personal network size: a non-experimental study. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 3, 300–28.Google Scholar