Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29626266›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2018

Preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services in Germany: a discrete choice experiment.

T Lehnert, O H Günther, A Hajek, S G Riedel-Heller, H H König

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Willingness to provide informal care to older adults in Germany: a discrete choice experiment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

T LehnertDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
O H GüntherDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
A HajekDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
S G Riedel-HellerInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
H H KönigDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. h.koenig@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5711-6862

Funding

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) 01EH1101B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost people prefer to "age in place" and to remain in their homes for as long as possible even in case they require long-term care. While informal care is projected to decrease in Germany, the use of home- and community-based services (HCBS) can be expected to increase in the future. Preference-based data on aspects of HCBS is needed to optimize person-centered care.

objectiveTo investigate preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services packages.

designDiscrete choice experiment conducted in mailed survey. SETTING AND

participantsRandomly selected sample of the general population aged 45-64 years in Germany (n = 1.209). MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Preferences and marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for HCBS were assessed with respect to five HCBS attributes (with 2-4 levels): care time per day, service level of the HCBS provider, quality of care, number of different caregivers per month, co-payment.

resultsQuality of care was the most important attribute to respondents and small teams of regular caregivers (1-2) were preferred over larger teams. Yet, an extended range of services of the HCBS provider was not preferred over a more narrow range. WTP per hour of HCBS was €8.98.

conclusionsOur findings on preferences for HCBS in the general population in Germany add to the growing international evidence of preferences for LTC. In light of the great importance of high care quality to respondents, reimbursement for services by HCBS providers could be more strongly linked to the quality of services.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareAttitude to HealthCaregiversCommunity Health ServicesFemaleGermanyHome Care ServicesHumansIndependent LivingLogistic ModelsLong-Term CareMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesDiscrete choice experimentLong-term careOld age assistancePreferences

Identifiers

PMID29626266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.