Consumer-directed Care (CDC) empowers older people to flexibly arrange services and enhances their well-being. Prior studies have suggested that limited attention and hassle costs are major demand-side barriers to using CDC. However, many other psychosocial factors were unexplored. In this study, we explore associations between CDC utilization and a wider range of psychosocial factors based on behavioral economics theories. A cross-sectional telephone survey of older persons (or family members that represent them) was conducted in Guangzhou, China in 2021. We adopted a two-stage sampling method based on administrative records and analyzed the data using multivariate logistic models. Procedural literacy, hassle costs, and social norms regarding CDC were associated with using CDC. The findings reveal nuances in the decision-making process, and people are not unboundedly rational in making care-related decisions. Policymakers could employ cost-effective tools to facilitate CDC utilization and optimize resources to address the most crucial service barriers.
BaxterK.GlendinningC.ClarkeS. (2008). Making informed choices in social care: The importance of accessible information. Health and Social Care in the Community, 16(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00742.x
2.
BaxterK.WilberforceM.BirksY. (2021). What skills do older self-funders in England need to arrange and manage social care? Findings from a scoping review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 51(7), 2703–2721. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa102
3.
BhattacherjeeA.HikmetN. (2007). Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: A theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(6), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000717
4.
CareyG.CrammondB.MalbonE. (2019). Personalisation schemes in social care and inequality: Review of the evidence and early theorising. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1075-2
5.
CareyG.MalbonE.BlackwellJ. (2021). Administering inequality? The national disability insurance scheme and administrative burdens on individuals. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 80(4), 854–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12508
6.
ChenH.NingJ. (2022). The impacts of long-term care insurance on health care utilization and expenditure: Evidence from China. Health policy and planning13(6), 717–727. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czac003
7.
ChernevA.BockenholtU.GoodmanJ. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002
8.
ChinnS. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 19(22), 3127–3131. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258
9.
CongdonW. J.KlingJ. R.MullainathanS. (2011). Policy and choice: Public finance through the lens of behavioral economics, Brookings Institution Press.
DahlG. B.LokenK. V.MogstadM. (2014). Peer effects in program participation. The American Economic Review, 104(7), 2049–2074. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.7.2049
12.
DaveyV.FernándezJ.-L.KnappM.VickN.JollyD.SwiftP.TobinR.KendallJ.FerrieJ.PearsonC.MercerG.PriestleyM. (2007). Direct payment: A national survey of direct payments policy and practice. Personal Social Services Research Unit. https://www.pssru.ac.uk/pub/dprla.pdf
13.
de São JoséJ.BarrosR.SamitcaS.TeixeiraA. (2016). Older persons’ experiences and perspectives of receiving social care: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. Health and Social Care in the Community, 24(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12186
14.
DeshpandeM.LiY. (2019). Who is screened out? Application costs and the targeting of disability programs. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(4), 213–248. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20180076
15.
DormannC. F.ElithJ.BacherS.BuchmannC.CarlG.CarréG.MarquézJ. R. G.GruberB.LafourcadeB.LeitãoP. J.MünkemüllerT.McCleanC.OsborneP. E.ReinekingB.SchröderB.SkidmoreA. K.ZurellD.LautenbachS. (2013). Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography, 36(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x
EtteltS.WilliamsL.PerkinsM.WittenbergR.LombardD.DamantJ.MaysN. (2018). Explaining low uptake of Direct Payments in residential care: Findings from the evaluation of the Direct Payments in residential care trailblazers. Journal of Social Policy, 47(3), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279417000794
18.
FoxA.FengW.ReynoldsM. (2022). The effect of administrative burden on state safety-net participation: Evidence from SNAP, TANF and medicaid, Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13497
19.
FrancisJ.EcclesM. P.JohnstonM.WalkerA. E.GrimshawJ. M.FoyR.KanerE. F. S.SmithL.BonettiD. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health services researchers. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/1735/
20.
Guangzhou Statistics Bureau. (2021). Guangzhou statistical Yearbook, China Statistical Press.
21.
HerdP.DeLeireT.HarveyH.MoynihanD. P. (2013). Shifting administrative burden to the state: The case of Medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review, 73(s1), S69–S81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12114
22.
HibbardJ. H.PetersE. (2003). Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: Data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health, 24(1), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.141005
23.
KanW. S.ChuiE. (2021). Vouchers and consumer-directed care: Implications for community care services in Hong Kong. British Journal of Social Work, 51(1), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa158
24.
LeeceD.LeeceJ. (2005). Direct Payments: Creating a two-tiered system in social care?British Journal of Social Work, 36(8), 1379–1393. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch394
25.
LeiX.BaiC.HongJ.LiuH. (2022). Long-term care insurance and the well-being of older adults and their families: Evidence from China. Social Science and Medicine, 296, 114745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114745
MadrianB. C.SheaD. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1187. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302753399535
MeinowB.ParkerM. G.ThorslundM. (2011). Consumers of eldercare in Sweden: The semblance of choice. Social Science and Medicine, 73(9), 1285–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.015
32.
MenardS. (2011). Standards for standardized logistic regression coefficients. Social Forces, 89(4), 1409–1428. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/89.4.1409
33.
MertensS.HerberzM.Hahnel UlfJ. J.BroschT. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), e2107346118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107346118
34.
MitchellF. (2015). Facilitators and barriers to informed choice in self-directed support for young people with disability in transition. Health and Social Care in the Community, 23(2), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12137
35.
MoP. K.MakW. W. (2009). Help-seeking for mental health problems among Chinese: The application and extension of the theory of planned behavior. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44(8), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-008-0484-0
36.
Montoro-RodriguezJ.KosloskiK.MontgomeryR. J. (2003). Evaluating a practice-oriented service model to increase the use of respite services among minorities and rural caregivers. The Gerontologist, 43(6), 916–924. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/43.6.916
OttmannG.AllenJ.FeldmanP. A. (2009). Self‐directed community aged care for people with complex needs: A literature review. Uniting care community options. https://apo.org.au/node/18375
40.
PattynE.WerbrouckA.GemmelP.TrybouJ. (2021). The impact of cash-for-care schemes on the uptake of community-based and residential care: A systematic review. Health Policy, 125(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.11.002
41.
RhodesN.ShulmanH. C.McClaranN. (2020). Changing norms: A meta-analytic integration of research on social norms appeals. Human Communication Research, 46(2-3), 161–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz023
42.
SchneiderP. (2004). Why should the poor insure? Theories of decision-making in the context of health insurance. Health Policy and Planning, 19(6), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czh050
43.
SciegajM.CapitmanJ. A.KyriacouC. K. (2004). Consumer-directed community care: Race/ethnicity and individual differences in rreferences for control. The Gerontologist, 44(4), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/44.4.489
44.
SteelP. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
45.
SteinerA.McMillanC.Hill O’ConnorC. (2022). Investigating the contribution of community empowerment policies to successful co-production- evidence from Scotland. Public Management Review, 25(8), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2033053
46.
TaberK. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
47.
ThalerR. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics, W.W. Norton and Company.
48.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, Penguin Books.
49.
WuJ.ChenS.WenH.YiY.LiaoX. (2020). Health status, care needs, and assessment for beneficiaries with or without dementia in a public long-term care insurance pilot in Guangzhou, China. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05965-1
50.
XuX.ChenL. (2019). Projection of long-term care costs in China, 2020–2050: Based on the Bayesian quantile regression method. Sustainability, 11(13), 3530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133530
51.
YangW.ChangS.ZhangW.WangR.MossialosE.WuX.CuiD.LiH.MiH. (2020). An initial analysis of the effects of a long-term care insurance on equity and efficiency: A case study of qingdao city in China. Research on Aging, 43(3-4), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027520907346
52.
ZhangJ.WangJ. S.-H.ChenY.-C. (2021). Policy design and consumer direction: Cross-country comparisons on consumer-directed care programs. Innovation in Aging, 5(Supplement_1), 827–827. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.3033
53.
ZhangL.FuS.FangY. (2020). Prediction the contribution rate of long-term care insurance for the aged in China based on the balance of supply and demand. Sustainability, 12(8), 3144. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083144
54.
ZhuY.ÖsterleA. (2019). China’s policy experimentation on long-term care insurance: Implications for access. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 34(4), e1661–e1674. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2879
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
