Indicators of familialism and defamilialization in long-term care: A theoretical overview and introduction of macro-level indicators

Ellen Verbakel; Karen Glaser; Yasmina Amzour; Martina Brandt; Marjolein Broese van Groenou

doi:10.1177/09589287221115669

Indicators of familialism and defamilialization in long-term care: A theoretical overview and introduction of macro-level indicators

Ellen Verbakel^*, Karen Glaser, Yasmina Amzour, Martina Brandt, Marjolein Broese van Groenou

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many countries have been working on revising their long-term care (LTC) policies to meet the increasing demand for care. Generally, little attention is paid to the potential (unintended) consequences of LTC policies for inequality among care users or informal caregivers. Saraceno previously explicitly argued that differences in care use and provision depend on the type of LTC policy, and that policies with contrasting consequences for inequality can be implemented at the same time. We call upon future research to empirically test the impact of different types of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care. To stimulate and facilitate such research, our aims are to outline theoretical arguments for the differential impact of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care and to create macro-level indicators for different types of supportive LTC policies in European countries over time. Our study’s research question is: Can we find and capture different dimensions of LTC policies in macro-level indicators that are comparable over countries and time? In particular, we focus on supported familialism (for example, informal caregiver support), supported defamilialization through the market (for example, in-cash benefits for care users), and defamilialization through public provision (for example, availability of beds in residential care). Besides a summary of the literature on LTC policies and how they may affect socio-economic inequalities in care, we outline our search process for macro-level LTC indicators and present descriptive information on the different types of LTC policies and their correlations. We discuss the difficulties that arise when translating theoretical insights about different types of LTC policies into high-quality measures for many countries and time points.

Original language	English
Journal	JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221115669
Publication status	Published - 3 Aug 2022

Keywords

ageing
care use
defamilialization
familialism
IN-CARE
inequality
informal care
Long-term care
LTC policy
macro-level indicators

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1177/09589287221115669Licence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{c6f799ec5a464052b1a8e9e73908ed62,

title = "Indicators of familialism and defamilialization in long-term care: A theoretical overview and introduction of macro-level indicators",

abstract = "Many countries have been working on revising their long-term care (LTC) policies to meet the increasing demand for care. Generally, little attention is paid to the potential (unintended) consequences of LTC policies for inequality among care users or informal caregivers. Saraceno previously explicitly argued that differences in care use and provision depend on the type of LTC policy, and that policies with contrasting consequences for inequality can be implemented at the same time. We call upon future research to empirically test the impact of different types of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care. To stimulate and facilitate such research, our aims are to outline theoretical arguments for the differential impact of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care and to create macro-level indicators for different types of supportive LTC policies in European countries over time. Our study{\textquoteright}s research question is: Can we find and capture different dimensions of LTC policies in macro-level indicators that are comparable over countries and time? In particular, we focus on supported familialism (for example, informal caregiver support), supported defamilialization through the market (for example, in-cash benefits for care users), and defamilialization through public provision (for example, availability of beds in residential care). Besides a summary of the literature on LTC policies and how they may affect socio-economic inequalities in care, we outline our search process for macro-level LTC indicators and present descriptive information on the different types of LTC policies and their correlations. We discuss the difficulties that arise when translating theoretical insights about different types of LTC policies into high-quality measures for many countries and time points.",

keywords = "ageing, care use, defamilialization, familialism, IN-CARE, inequality, informal care, Long-term care, LTC policy, macro-level indicators",

author = "Ellen Verbakel and Karen Glaser and Yasmina Amzour and Martina Brandt and {van Groenou}, {Marjolein Broese}",

note = "Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by an Open Research Area grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) (grant number ORA 464.18.106), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (grant numbers ES/S01523X/1), and the German Research Foundation (DFG) (grant number BR 3868/4-1) within the Open Research Area for the Social Sciences (ORA) for the project {\textquoteleft}In-CARE: How are varying care systems associated with inequalities in care and wellbeing in later life?{\textquoteright} ( http://in-care.fk12.tu-dortmund.de/ ). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2022.",

year = "2022",

month = aug,

day = "3",

doi = "10.1177/09589287221115669",

language = "English",

journal = "JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY",

issn = "0958-9287",

publisher = "Sage Publications",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indicators of familialism and defamilialization in long-term care

T2 - A theoretical overview and introduction of macro-level indicators

AU - Verbakel, Ellen

AU - Glaser, Karen

AU - Amzour, Yasmina

AU - Brandt, Martina

AU - van Groenou, Marjolein Broese

N1 - Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by an Open Research Area grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) (grant number ORA 464.18.106), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (grant numbers ES/S01523X/1), and the German Research Foundation (DFG) (grant number BR 3868/4-1) within the Open Research Area for the Social Sciences (ORA) for the project ‘In-CARE: How are varying care systems associated with inequalities in care and wellbeing in later life?’ ( http://in-care.fk12.tu-dortmund.de/ ). Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022.

PY - 2022/8/3

Y1 - 2022/8/3

N2 - Many countries have been working on revising their long-term care (LTC) policies to meet the increasing demand for care. Generally, little attention is paid to the potential (unintended) consequences of LTC policies for inequality among care users or informal caregivers. Saraceno previously explicitly argued that differences in care use and provision depend on the type of LTC policy, and that policies with contrasting consequences for inequality can be implemented at the same time. We call upon future research to empirically test the impact of different types of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care. To stimulate and facilitate such research, our aims are to outline theoretical arguments for the differential impact of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care and to create macro-level indicators for different types of supportive LTC policies in European countries over time. Our study’s research question is: Can we find and capture different dimensions of LTC policies in macro-level indicators that are comparable over countries and time? In particular, we focus on supported familialism (for example, informal caregiver support), supported defamilialization through the market (for example, in-cash benefits for care users), and defamilialization through public provision (for example, availability of beds in residential care). Besides a summary of the literature on LTC policies and how they may affect socio-economic inequalities in care, we outline our search process for macro-level LTC indicators and present descriptive information on the different types of LTC policies and their correlations. We discuss the difficulties that arise when translating theoretical insights about different types of LTC policies into high-quality measures for many countries and time points.

AB - Many countries have been working on revising their long-term care (LTC) policies to meet the increasing demand for care. Generally, little attention is paid to the potential (unintended) consequences of LTC policies for inequality among care users or informal caregivers. Saraceno previously explicitly argued that differences in care use and provision depend on the type of LTC policy, and that policies with contrasting consequences for inequality can be implemented at the same time. We call upon future research to empirically test the impact of different types of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care. To stimulate and facilitate such research, our aims are to outline theoretical arguments for the differential impact of LTC policies on socio-economic inequalities in care and to create macro-level indicators for different types of supportive LTC policies in European countries over time. Our study’s research question is: Can we find and capture different dimensions of LTC policies in macro-level indicators that are comparable over countries and time? In particular, we focus on supported familialism (for example, informal caregiver support), supported defamilialization through the market (for example, in-cash benefits for care users), and defamilialization through public provision (for example, availability of beds in residential care). Besides a summary of the literature on LTC policies and how they may affect socio-economic inequalities in care, we outline our search process for macro-level LTC indicators and present descriptive information on the different types of LTC policies and their correlations. We discuss the difficulties that arise when translating theoretical insights about different types of LTC policies into high-quality measures for many countries and time points.

KW - ageing

KW - care use

KW - defamilialization

KW - familialism

KW - IN-CARE

KW - inequality

KW - informal care

KW - Long-term care

KW - LTC policy

KW - macro-level indicators

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135461835&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/09589287221115669

DO - 10.1177/09589287221115669

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85135461835

SN - 0958-9287

JO - JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY

JF - JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY

ER -

Indicators of familialism and defamilialization in long-term care: A theoretical overview and introduction of macro-level indicators

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this