Urban-rural differences in factors associated with willingness to receive eldercare among the elderly: a cross-sectional survey in China. Issue 5 (31st May 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xing, Yanan; Pei, Ruijuan; Qu, Jing; Wang, Juan; Zhou, Hao; Wang, Zhaoqing; Yan, Wenxin; Sun, Xinran; Sun, Tao; Li, Li
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 8:Issue 5(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-05-31
• Subjects: willingness to receive eldercare -- elderly -- urban -- rural; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020225
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Willingness to receive eldercare is an important factor affecting the reasonable allocation of resources and appropriate development of eldercare services. This study aimed to investigate the differences in willingness to receive eldercare and the influencing factors in urban and rural areas. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Research was conducted in the urban and rural areas of three cities (Harbin, Qiqihar and Jiamusi) in Heilongjiang province, China. Participants: A total of 1003 elderly were selected through multistage sampling in Heilongjiang province, including 581 in urban areas and 422 in rural areas. Main outcome measures: Descriptive statistics were reported for socioeconomic and demographic status, physical health, life satisfaction and social support in urban and rural areas. Mean differences were examined using t-tests, and categorical variable differences were examined using χ 2 tests. The factors influencing willingness to receive eldercare in urban and rural areas were analysed using logistic regression. Results: The results showed that 51.6% of urban elderly and 59.0% of rural elderly preferred family eldercare. Factors that influenced willingness to receive eldercare for urban elderly were age (OR 2.791, 95% CI 1.644 to 4.737), house property (OR 0.494, 95% CI 0.329 to 0.740) and objective support (OR 0.764, 95% CI 0.681 to 0.858). For rural elderly, the factors were having children (OR 0.368, 95% CI 0.146 to 0.930), house property (OR 0.371, 95% CI 0.231 to 0.596) and living arrangement (OR 3.361, 95% CI 1.436 to 7.866). Conclusion: More attention should be paid to improving the functioning of family eldercare and promoting the development of varied eldercare services. Investments and targeted policies should be undertaken for different subgroups of urban and rural elderly.