549 Views
82 Downloads |
Bridging the gap: socioeconomic inequalities in the use of formal and informal home care
Maja Matanić Vautmans*
Article | Year: 2026 | Pages: 241 - 257 | Volume: 50 | Issue: 2 Received: June 1, 2025 | Accepted: December 15, 2025 | Published online: June 5, 2026
|
FULL ARTICLE
FIGURES & DATA
REFERENCES
CROSSMARK POLICY
METRICS
LICENCING
PDF
|
Person
|
Health status
|
Number of
visits by a formal caregiver
|
|
|
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
|
1
|
Good
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
2
|
Good
|
10
|
5
|
10
|
5
|
|
3
|
Bad
|
5
|
10
|
15
|
5
|
|
4
|
Bad
|
10
|
10
|
20
|
5
|
|
HI*
|
|
Inequality
|
Equality
|
Inequality
|
Equality
|
|
VI**
|
|
Inequity
|
Equity
|
Equity
|
Inequity
|
Note: HI* shows horizontal (in)equality2 VI** shows vertical (in)equity. Source: Author based on Vallejo-Torres (2013).
|
Independent variables
|
Explanations
|
|
Age
|
It is assumed that older people will be more
likely to use formal care since they often live alone (without a spouse or
children in their immediate environment), and their health condition becomes
increasingly complicated with age, requiring professional care. Age is a
quantitative variable that measures the age of the respondents3 at
the time of the survey.
|
|
Gender
|
Women are more likely to be widowed. With a
longer life expectancy and having cared for their spouses throughout their
lives, they themselves become dependent on other people's help. Since the
complexity of health conditions increases with age, it is assumed that they will
use formal care. Gender is a binary variable, indicating whether the
respondent is female.
|
|
Education
|
Higher levels of education are associated with
greater access to information, higher income, and a tendency to choose formal
care. Education is a quantitative variable that measures the total number of
years of formal education completed by respondents.
|
|
Income
|
Higher income provides greater opportunities and
greater use of formal care. Household income is determined by the total
average income of all family members. As income has an asymmetric
distribution with most respondents having lower values and a smaller number
of respondents having high and very high values, the variable will be
transformed by its natural logarithm before inclusion in the analyses. This
quantitative variable in the paper is marked as Income.
|
|
Marital status
|
Married people are more likely to choose informal
care, as one of the spouses can take on the role of informal caregiver. The
marital status variable is a binary variable, where the first category
includes the original categories: “never married”, “divorced”,
“widows/widowers”; and the second categories: “married, living with spouse”,
“registered partnership” and “married, not living with spouse”.
|
|
Children
|
People living in families with children are more
likely to use informal care than people without children. The children
variable is a quantitative variable of the number of children of the
respondents.
|
|
Area
|
Area is a binary variable of the place where the
respondents live, where the original variable had 5 categories that were
combined into two: urban and rural.
|
|
Health status
|
Based on the person's own assessment (self-perceived
health with a scale from 1 – excellent to 5 – poor and given that it takes on
5 different values with an approximately symmetrical distribution, this is
used in the analyses as a quantitative variable with numerical values from 1
to 5.
|
|
Chronic diseases
|
Health conditions that last longer than 3 months.
Chronic conditions records the number of chronic conditions that the
respondent lives with and is also treated as a quantitative variable.
|
|
ADL
|
Activities of daily living limitations (ADL) refers
to six parameters using the Katz index to record a person's state of health
and refers to: 1. walking across the room; 2. dressing; 3. bathing or
showering; 4. dining; 5. getting on/off the bed; 6. use of the toilet. ADL
was measured on scale from 0 to 6.
|
|
IADL
|
Instrumental activities of daily living limitations
(IADL) refers to 8 parameters using the Lawtaon index to assess independent
functioning in daily life. They relate to 1. preparing meals; 2. shopping for
groceries; 3. making telephone calls; 4. taking medications; 5. managing
finances; 6. using transportation; 7. household activities; and 8. dressing
and doing laundry. IADL is measured on a scale from 0 to 9 (laundry is a
separate category 9).
|
Source: Author.
Andersen, R. and Newman, J. F., 1973. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, 51(1), pp. 95-124 [ CrossRef]
Bakx, P. [et al.], 2015. Going formal or informal, who cares? The influence of public long-term care insurance. Health Economics, 24(6), pp. 631-643 [ CrossRef]
Barbieri, D. and Ghibelli, P., 2018. Formal versus informal long-term care: Economic and social impacts. Zenodo [ CrossRef]
Börsch-Supan, A. [et al.], 2013. Data resource profile: The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). International Journal of Epidemiology, 42(4), pp. 992-1001 [ CrossRef]
Boudet, A. M. M. [et al.], 2018. Gender differences in poverty and household composition through the life cycle: A global perspective. Policy Research Working Papers, No. 8360 [ CrossRef]
Broese van Groenou, M. I. and De Boer, A., 2016. Providing informal care in a changing society. European Journal of Ageing, 13(3), pp. 271-279 [ CrossRef]
Colombo, F. [et al.], 2011. Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care. Paris: OECD [ CrossRef]
Da Roit, B. and Le Bihan, B., 2010. Similar and yet so different: Cash-for-care in six European countries’ long-term care policies. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(3), pp. 286-309.
Erreygers, G., 2009. Correcting the concentration index. Journal of Health Economics, 28(2), pp. 504-515 [ CrossRef]
European Commission, 2021. Green paper on ageing (COM(2021) 350 final).
Fernandez, J. L. and Forder, J., 2015. Local variability in long-term care services: Local autonomy, exogenous influences and policy spillovers. Health Economics, 24(S1), pp. 146-157 [ CrossRef]
Gross, A. L., Jones, R. N. and Inouye, S. K., 2014. Development of a composite measure of physical functioning for older persons. Research on Aging, 37(7), pp. 671-694 [ CrossRef]
Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M., 2009. State care provision, societal opinion and children’s care of older parents in 11 European countries. Ageing and Society, 30(2), p. 299-323 [ CrossRef]
Hong, H. G. [et al.], 2019. New Composite Measure for ADL Limitations: Application to Predicting Nursing Home Placement for Michigan MI Choice Clients. Medical Care Research and Review, 78(4), pp. 413–422 [ CrossRef]
Igel, C. [et al.], 2009. Specialization between family and state intergenerational time transfers in Western Europe. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(2), pp. 203-226. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41604275
Ilinca, S. [et al.], 2017. Fairness and eligibility to long-term care: An analysis of the factors driving inequality and inequity in the use of home care for older Europeans. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10), 1224 [ CrossRef]
Jiménez-Martín, S. and Prieto, C. V., 2011. The trade-off between formal and informal care in Spain. The European Journal of Health Economics, 13(4), pp. 461-490 [ CrossRef]
Liu, H., 2021. Formal and Informal Care: Complementary or Substitutes in Care for Elderly People? Empirical Evidence from China. Sage Open, 11(2). [ CrossRef]
Mirowsky, J. and Ross, C. E., 2005. Education, cumulative advantage, and health. Ageing International, 30, pp. 27-62 [ CrossRef]
Morris, S., Sutton, M. and Gravelle, H., 2005. Inequity and inequality in the use of health care in England: an empirical investigation. Social Science & Medicine, 60(6), pp. 1251-1266 [ CrossRef]
O’Donnell, O. [et al.], 2007. Analyzing health equity using household survey data. Washington: The World Bank [ CrossRef]
OECD, 2017. The pursuit of gender equality: An uphill battle. Paris: OECD [ CrossRef]
OECD, 2020. Affordability of long-term care services among older people in the OECD and the EU. Paris: OECD [ CrossRef]
Portrait, F., Lindeboom, M. and Deeg, D. J. H., 2000. The use of long-term care services by the Dutch elderly. Health Economics, 9(6), pp. 513-531 [ CrossRef]
Rodrigues, R., Ilinca, S. and Schmidt, A. E., 2017. Income‐rich and wealth‐poor? The impact of measures of socio‐economic status in the analysis of the distribution of long‐term care use among older people. Health Economics, 27(3), pp. 637-646 [ CrossRef]
SHARE-ERIC, 2024a. Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 8 (Release version 9.0.0) [Data set] [ CrossRef]
SHARE-ERIC, 2024b. Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 8 COVID-19 Survey 1 (Release version 9.0.0) [Data set] [ CrossRef]
SHARE-ERIC, 2024c. Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 9 (Release version 9.0.0) [Data set] [ CrossRef]
SHARE-ERIC, 2024d. Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 9 COVID-19 Survey 2 (Release version 9.0.0) [Data set] [ CrossRef]
Theobald, H., 2003. Care for the elderly: Welfare system, professionalization and the question of inequality. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(4-5), pp. 159-185 [ CrossRef]
Vallejo-Torres, L., 2013. An economic analysis of vertical equity in the delivery of health care in England. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.
Wagstaff, A., van Doorslaer, E. and Paci, P., 1991. On the measurement of horizontal inequity in the delivery of health care. Journal of Health Economics, 10(2), pp. 169-205 [ CrossRef]
Wagstaff, A. and van Doorslaer, E., 2000. Income inequality and health: What does the literature tell us? Annual Review of Public Health, 21, pp. 543-567 [ CrossRef]
Zigante, V., 2018. Informal care in Europe: Exploring formalization, availability and quality. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion [ CrossRef]
|
|
June, 2026 II/2026
|