Long‐term Care in Denmark and Lithuania – A Most Dissimilar Case

Poškutė, Virginija; Greve, Bent

doi:10.1111/spol.12318

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…International documentation (European Commission, 2003, 2013, 2016a, 2016bEuropean Union, 2014;ILO, 2005) enables analysis of the Lithuanian situation in a broader European context. Academic literature on long-term care (Greve, 2017a(Greve, , 2017bMarcinkowska, 2010;Poskute, 2017;Poskute & Greve, 2017) and social investment (Bouget et al, 2015(Bouget et al, , 2016Hemerijck, 2013Hemerijck, , 2015Lazutka et al, 2015;Leoni, 2016;Lopes, 2017;Morel et al, 2012;Nicaise & Shepers, 2013) sets the stage for the analysis of primary data collected during this study on LTC stakeholders' perceptions linking the two concepts -'long-term care' and 'social investment' together.…”

Section: Methodology and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the concepts of ‘social investment’ and ‘long-term care for the elderly’ compatible? Perceptions of long-term care stakeholders in Lithuania

Poškutė

2018

J. int. comp. soc. policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ageing of society and long-term care (LTC) for the elderly are becoming hot topics on most European countries’ social and economic policy agendas. Increasing demand for the financing of LTC raises the necessity for a search for social policy alternatives without further increasing pressure on national budgets. The social investment approach is seen as an argument in favour of interpreting social expenditure as a ‘productive factor’ (ILO. (2005). Social protection as a productive factor. GB.294/ESP/4. Geneva, p. 2). This approach to welfare systems argues that social expenditure might be seen as investment that produces economic and social returns in time. The perception of what social investment is in relation to the LTC for the elderly is not clear either in public or academic discussion. In responding to this lacuna, this article analyses the views of LTC stakeholders in Lithuania concerning: the system and its challenges; what factors they consider as most significant to successful LTC policies and their implementation; and how the concept of social investment should be understood.

show abstract

Section: Methodology and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the concepts of ‘social investment’ and ‘long-term care for the elderly’ compatible? Perceptions of long-term care stakeholders in Lithuania

Poškutė

2018

J. int. comp. soc. policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lietuvoje, kaip ir kitose Rytų Europos šalyse, šis priežiūros nutekėjimo poveikis gali būti ryškus dėl spartaus populiacijos senėjimo, nulemto gana ilgos gyvenimo trukmės, mažo gimstamumo, atitinkamai -mažiau šeimos narių, galinčių pasirūpinti vyriausiais (Kasnauskienė, Vebraitė 2014). Lietuvoje priežiūros paslaugos seniems žmonėms yra nepakankamai išplėtotos (Tamutienė, Naujanienė 2013;Blažienė, Žalimienė 2020), vyrauja neformali pagalba vyresnio amžiaus žmonėms, teikiama artimųjų ar draugų, o ilgalaikė priežiūra pirmiausia yra institucinė (Poškutė, Greve 2017;Styczyńska 2010).…”

Section: įVadasunclassified

Why People Emigrate to Work in Elder Care?

Rapolienė

Ayalon

2021

STEPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emigration is one of the sorest problems in Lithuania. Emigrants from Lithuania most often fill the sector of unskilled labour in the target countries, one of which is elder care. Financial factors are considered the main motivation for emigration; however, migration is a complex phenomenon and requires a more nuanced investigation. The aim of this article is to analyse subjectively identified reasons of emigration from Lithuania to work in the elder care sector and motivation in choosing a particular country. The thematic data analysis of 13 semi-structured interviews revealed that emigration is motivated by an entirety of reasons: beside financial factors other „push“ (family, health) and „pull“ (knowledge about the country, family formation) factors are important. The move also is facilitated by the chain migration factors. The importance of the economic reasons for migration is revealed in cases of financial insecurity (loss of employment, threat of company bankruptcy, financial difficulties in the parents’ family etc.). Economic considerations become significant again, when comparing the job options and working conditions available to migrants. Work in the care sector for older people is seen as relatively easy, accessible and well paid. Other “push” factors were related to an unsatisfactory life situation, including stressful employment, and unsatisfying family relationships. The desire to get to know a foreign country, the opportunity to start a family or establish oneself there can work as „pull“ factors. The decision to emigrate was supported by the chain migration factors – encouragement, help and support of previously established immigrants. In some cases, it emerged as an independent factor of migration people emigrated, invited by relatives or acquaintances from abroad even though they did not initially plan to migrate. With the rapidly growing share of older people in Lithuania and the underdeveloped care services, the opportunity to retain potential emigrants by creating attractive working conditions for them in Lithuania, remains untapped. Policies should aim to improve the working conditions and opportunities in the care sector in Lithuania in order to encourage Lithuanians to stay in the country. In addition, regulations to better absorb (returning) migrants should be in place, given the ongoing movement between countries.

show abstract

“…Long‐term care of older 2 people in Lithuania may be seen as an emerging social risk (Poškutė & Greve, 2017). The latest developments in its welfare state reflect the neoliberal ideology – more market elements are being introduced, and the emphasis is put on the individual responsibility for one's well‐being (Aidukaite et al., 2016; Polese et al., 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formal LTC services are provided in Lithuania via social security and health care sectors, with non‐state institutions (NGOs, community based, religious and private capital) gaining greater significance. The demand for LTC services exceeds their availability through all three sectors cumulatively (Poškutė & Greve, 2017). Thus, LTC reforming has become critical, and among other measures, greater intersectoral, interorganisational and interprofessional collaboration needs to be encouraged.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder collaboration in long‐term care of older people in Lithuania

Poškutė

Kazlauskaitė

Matonytė

2021

Health Soc Care Community

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demographic situation, changes in the role of women in society and growing demand for long‐term care (LTC) of older people have challenged the ability to meet the growing LTC needs in most developed countries. In countries where responsibility for LTC is still largely laid on families, it is, however, even more critical and calls for improvements in formal LTC systems. More intensive stakeholder collaboration in LTC policy development, organising and delivery are of primary importance in improving LTC systems. Such collaboration, however, is not always successful; thus, it is critical to understand what makes it effective and efficient. In this paper, we specifically look into multistakeholder collaboration in LTC in Lithuania, one of the fastest ageing countries in the EU, with the demand for LTC services growing fast and exceeding the supply despite rising business and NGO engagement. To determine facilitators of such collaboration, we build on the data obtained through eight focus group discussions with all key stakeholder representatives (LTC policymakers, organisers and service providers [public, private and NGOs], 54 participants in total). Our findings indicate that in addition to national and organisational level facilitators studied in prior research, there are important individual level factors, such as meaningfulness at work, concern and care for others, possibility for personal growth and development, satisfaction with supervision, a sense of belonging and role clarity. On the other hand, our results show that collaboration is constrained by a shortage of human resources, increased workload caused by growing LTC demand, bureaucratic requirements, legal restrictions, lack of awareness of LTC service availability among elder persons, and prevailing social norms and attitudes to institutionalised care. Interestingly, a lack of financial resources is not perceived as a major constraint.

show abstract

Long‐term Care in Denmark and Lithuania – A Most Dissimilar Case

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Are the concepts of ‘social investment’ and ‘long-term care for the elderly’ compatible? Perceptions of long-term care stakeholders in Lithuania

Are the concepts of ‘social investment’ and ‘long-term care for the elderly’ compatible? Perceptions of long-term care stakeholders in Lithuania

Why People Emigrate to Work in Elder Care?

Stakeholder collaboration in long‐term care of older people in Lithuania

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About