TC and socio-economic deprivation of families are two relevant issues in international debate. The economic or time investment made by families in caregiving has an impact on the socio-economic status of family members in terms of economic means and social inclusion. This study analyzes the practices that are supported by home LTC, examining their characteristics, identifying their strengths, weaknesses, drivers, and barriers, as well as identifying social innovation aspects. The study provides a qualitative interpretative comparison of 22 practices from eight countries, representing the four LTC care models existing in Europe. Cross-studies aid in the development of sustainable policies. The study highlights the differences and similarities between selected practices. The results indicate the effectiveness of integrative and coordination strategies at the macro, meso, and micro levels for the development of supportive policies for family members with burdens of care. Nevertheless, the results underline the lack of a genuine focus on families’ socio-economic support for providing care. The partial support provided by compensatory cash benefits or unpaid care leave schemes partially addresses the difficulties of familial burden of care. The study recommends that fair economic compensation and social security benefits be incorporated into innovative and sustainable strategies for supporting caregiving in LTC and welfare schemes.

Background Long-term care (LTC), poverty, and socioeconomic deprivation are globally significant social issues. Ongoing population aging trends and the recent social and health emergencies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis have highlighted the need for macro-level LTC and welfare system sustainability strategies. At the micro level, the relationship between LTC needs and the risk of socioeconomic deprivation and poverty should be taken into account to promote more targeted and innovative policies worldwide. This scoping review explores the relationship between LTC needs, the health status of older people, and the risk of socioeconomic deprivation for their families in order to understand how the literature interprets these concepts and the relationship between them and to identify any potential gaps in this regard. Methods The methodology considers different relevant sources: a) the guidelines for ScR proposed by Lockwood et al. [1]; b) the Munn et al. [2] recommendations; c) the PRISMA guideline for Scoping Reviews [3]; and d) the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist [4]; Sixty-three papers are included in the frequency analysis of 9 identified categories to respond of aims. Results The findings reveal the existence of a debate that seeks to understand the different characteristics of the relationship between the investigated issues. Specific targets (such as older people, caregivers, and households) are used to identify LTC needs, while material deprivation or poverty is used to determine the conditions of deprivation. Relevant gaps in the literature are identified in terms of the concepts and approaches of the studies analyzed. The results indicate that the reciprocal relationship between LTC needs, supply, and the risk of socioeconomic deprivation is understudied. Conclusions The simplification strategy used in many studies to reduce the relationship’s complexity precludes an in-depth analysis and debate on some relevant aspects, including the crucial two-way relationship between LTC needs/supply and the risk of socioeconomic deprivation. Future studies should focus on the causal relationship between the two phenomena and identify any internal factors that may be involved.