ArticleHealth economics review2025
Valuation of informal care for the old-aged with disabilities in China-a discrete choice experiment approach.
Article in Health economics review, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapidly aging population will lead to a surge in demand for long-term care services in China. Reinforced by the cultural norms, and with inadequate nursing resources and social care facilities, long-term care in China is primary the responsibility of the immediate family. Despite the central role of family caregivers, little is known about their preferences and how they value different types of caregiving tasks. This study provides new evidence on the economic valuation of informal care in the Chinese context.
methodsDiscrete choice experiment (DCE) and mixed logit models (MXL) were employed to measure the preferences for an economic value of different types of informal care (daily care, medical care and companion care) among old-aged adults in China. 466 participants from nationwide were recruited and interviewed.
resultsAmong the respondents, 19.5% always chose to receive the free care package and 15.2% always chose to obtain cash compensation for informal caregiving. Of the three care tasks, participants placed the highest value on daily care (RMB48.202 ($13.26 PPP) per hour) and the lowest value on companion care (RMB18.608 ($5.12 PPP) per hour). The probability of choosing cash compensation rose when compensation increased and fells when the care time increased. The preferences for assistance varied significantly by individual's demographic and health-related characteristics. Female respondents preferred for care packages relative to males; farmers and current caregivers preferred cash compensation; married participants had low preferences for companion care; participants from western region had low preferences for medical care. DISCUSSION: Our findings confirm the importance of cash compensation in retaining caregivers to provide informal care. The heterogeneity of preferences among different groups is significantly influenced by their sex, occupation, caregiving, marital status and region. Our study supports the promotion of cash compensation to informal caregivers and different levels of incentives for different groups of informal caregivers.
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.