ArticleThe Gerontologist2026
"There for the safety net, not the dreams": local decision-makers' perceptions on scarcity, trade-offs, and caregiving responsibilities in social care resource allocation in the Netherlands.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIn the Netherlands, municipalities are responsible for providing social care to enable older individuals to age in place. Resources are largely allocated by local decision-makers who translate policy into individual-level decisions, yet little is known about how they interpret and weigh relevant considerations in practice. This study examines how local decision-makers perceive the scarcity of social care resources, trade-offs they make, and challenges they encounter in everyday decision-making. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted interviews with 27 local decision-makers, structured around perceptions of scarcity, trade-offs, and challenges. The analysis was guided by analytic questions focusing on interpretations of the Social Support Act, perceptions of scarcity, trade-offs, challenges in decision-making practice, and views on caregiving responsibility.
resultsLocal decision-makers varied in how they perceived scarcity and interpreted the statutory principles of the Social Support Act, resulting in different approaches to prioritization. Participants described a paradox between local discretion and a narrowing ability to target resources for particular priorities due to case law. Another identified challenge concerns the mismatch between policy expectations and societal views on caregiving responsibilities. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Local decision-makers' challenges with conflicting aspects of the Social Support Act are reflected in different and sometimes incompatible prioritization approaches. Paradoxically, the Act's broad, open formulation results in an increasingly restricted ability to allocate resources effectively in view of local needs. Better alignment between national legislation and local realities is required to allow scope for meaningful local discretion, alongside national debate to clarify priorities to support transparent and equitable allocation of social care resources.
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.