ArticleHealth policy and planning2025
Compensation preferences of home-based disabled beneficiaries in the long-term care insurance system in Guangzhou, China.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores the preferences and willingness-to-pay of home-based disabled elderly individuals for long-term care insurance (LTCI) compensation mechanisms in Guangzhou, China, using a discrete choice experiment. The research aims to identify preferred compensation strategies, analyze heterogeneity in preferences, and provide recommendations for policy optimization. Using purposive and cluster sampling, 156 eligible participants were identified, with 96 completing the survey (response rate: 61.5.%). Disabled elderly individuals were defined based on activities of daily living assessments. A conditional Logit model was applied to analyze preferences, and subgroup analyses examined differences by education, gender, activities of daily living status, and caregiving arrangements. Key findings include preferences for medical care over life care, family caregivers over professional ones, and cash subsidies over mixed or proportional reimbursement. Respondents were willing to pay an additional $21.60 for medical care and $25.26 for cash subsidies (1 USD = 7.3 CNY). The average out-of-pocket cost for LTCI services was $27.39 per session, with a sub-average cost of $16.44 for basic care services. Subgroup analyses revealed higher-educated individuals favored medical care, while lower-educated groups prioritized affordability. Severely disabled individuals preferred professional caregivers, such as registered nurses. This study highlights the need to expand medical care services, integrate flexible compensation models, and tailor policies to demographic differences. The findings provide evidence for optimizing China's LTCI system and offer insights for aging populations in low- and middle-income countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.