BackgroundSocieties around the world face the burden of an aging population with a high prevalence of chronic conditions. Thus, the demand for different types of long-term care will increase and change over time. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify determinants for utilization and transitions of long-term care in adults older than 65 years by using Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use.MethodsThe study examined individuals older than 65 years between 2011/2012 (t1) and 2016 (t2) from the population-based Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg (KORA)-Age study from Southern Germany. Analyzed determinants consisted of predisposing (age, sex, education), enabling (living arrangement, income) and need (multimorbidity, disability) factors. Generalized estimating equation logistic models were used to identify determinants for utilization and types of long-term care. A logistic regression model examined determinants for transitions to long-term care over four years through a longitudinal analysis.ResultsWe analyzed 810 individuals with a mean age of 78.4 years and 24.4% receiving long-term care at t1. The predisposing factors higher age and female sex, as well as the need factors higher multimorbidity and higher disability score, were determinants for both utilization and transitions of long-term care. Living alone, higher income and a higher disability score had a significant influence on the utilization of formal versus informal long-term care.ConclusionOur results emphasize that both utilization and transitions of long-term care are influenced by a complex construct of predisposing, enabling and need factors. This knowledge is important to identify at-risk populations and helps policy-makers to anticipate future needs for long-term care.Trial registrationNot applicableElectronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0860-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background Cognitive impairment in older adults causes a high economic and societal burden. This study assesses the costeffectiveness of the multicomponent, non-pharmacological MAKS treatment vs. "care as usual" in German day care centers (DCCs) for community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild to moderate dementia over 6 months. Methods The analysis was conducted from the societal perspective alongside the cluster-randomized controlled, multicenter, prospective DeTaMAKS-trial with waitlist group design. Outcomes were Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and Erlangen Test of Activities of Daily Living in Persons with Mild Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment (ETAM) of 433 individuals in 32 DCCs. Incremental differences in MMSE and ETAM were calculated via a Gaussian-distributed and incremental cost difference via a Gamma-distributed Generalized Linear Model. Cost-effectiveness was assessed via costeffectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC). Results At 6 months, MMSE (adjusted mean difference = 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17 to 1.67; p = 0.02) and ETAM (adjusted mean difference = 1.00; CI: 0.14 to 1.85; p = 0.02) were significantly better in the intervention group. The adjusted cost difference was − €938.50 (CI: − 2733.65 to 763.13; p = 0.31). Given the CEAC, MAKS was cost-effective for 78.0% of MMSE and 77.4% for ETAM without a need for additional costs to payers. Conclusions MAKS is a cost-effective treatment to stabilize the ability to perform activities of daily living and cognitive abilities of people with MCI or mild to moderate dementia in German DCCs. Thus, MAKS should be implemented in DCCs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.