The relationship of personal budgets with independence, participation and quality of life; a secondary analysis of survey data using propensity score matching
-
Published:2020-11-07
Issue:1
Volume:4
Page:
-
ISSN:2509-8020
-
Container-title:Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:J Patient Rep Outcomes
Author:
Marangos Anna Maria, Iedema Jurjen, de Klerk Mirjam, Woittiez Isolde, Groenewegen Peter P.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Personal budgets for social and health care have been introduced in many European countries over recent decades. The assumption is that people with a personal budget are able to purchase care that matches their needs more closely and therefore experience greater independence and improved well-being. The question is whether this assumption is true. Little research has been carried out on this and the research that has been carried out is inconclusive and hampered by methodological limitations.
Methods
We performed a secondary analysis of data collected in a survey among persons who had submitted an application for social support. Propensity score matching was used to investigate whether people with a personal budget experience better independence, participation in society and quality of life than comparable people using conventionally organised help.
Results
After matching, no significant effects of the personal budget were initially found. A sensitivity analysis that excluded the variable sense of mastery from the calculation of the propensity scores, showed a significantly greater independence for those using a personal budget.
Conclusion
There may be several reasons for this lack of effect. First, perhaps there are no effects. It is also possible that effects can only be found in specific situations and/or specific groups.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Information Management,Health Informatics
Reference35 articles.
1. Timonen, V., Convery, J., & Cahill, S. (2006). Care revolutions in the making? A comparison of cash-for-care programmes in four European countries. Ageing Social, 26, 455–474. 2. Da Roit, B., Le Bihan, B., & Österle, A. (2007). Long-term care policies in Italy, Austria and France: Variations in cash-for-care schemes. Social Policy and Administration, 41(6), 653–671. 3. Da Roit, B., & Le Bihan, B. (2010). Similar and yet so different: Cash-for-care in six European countries’ long-term care policies. Milbank Quarterly, 88(3), 286–309. 4. Kroneman, M., Boerma, W., van den Berg, M., Groenewegen, P., de Jong, J., & van Ginneken, E. (2016). The Netherlands: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 18(2), 1–239. 5. Woolham, J., Daly, G., Sparks, T., Ritters, K., & Steils, N. (2017). Do direct payments improve outcomes for older people who receive social care? Differences in outcome between people aged 75+ who have a managed personal budget or a direct payment. Ageing Social, 37, 961–984.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|