↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of first-time utilization of long-term care services in the Netherlands: an observational record linkage study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Determinants of first-time utilization of long-term care services in the Netherlands: an observational record linkage study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2570-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurentius C.J. Slobbe, Albert Wong, Robert A. Verheij, Hans A.M. van Oers, Johan J. Polder

Abstract

Since in an ageing society more long-term care (LTC) facilities are needed, it is important to understand the main determinants of first-time utilization of (LTC) services. The Andersen service model, which distinguishes predisposing, enabling and need factors, was used to develop a model for first-time utilization of LTC services among the general population of the Netherlands. We used data on 214,821 persons registered in a database of general practitioners (NIVEL Primary Care Database). For each person the medical history was known, as well as characteristics such as ethnicity, income, home-ownership, and marital status. Utilization data from the national register on long-term care was linked at a personal level. Generalized Linear Models were used to determine the relative importance of factors of incident LTC-service utilization. Top 5 determinants of LTC are need, measured as the presence of chronic diseases, age, household size, household income and homeownership. When controlling for all other determinants, the presence of an additional chronic disease increases the probability of utilizing any LTC service by 45% among the 20+ population (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.49), and 31% among the 65+ population (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.27-1.36). With respect to the 20+ population, living in social rent (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 2.25-2.67, ref. = home-owner) had a large impact on utilizing any LTC service. In a lesser degree this was the case for living alone (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.52-1.75, ref. = not living alone). A higher household income was linked with a lower utilization of any LTC service. All three factors of the Anderson model, predisposing, enabling, and need determinants influence the likelihood of future LTC service utilization. This implies that none of these factors can be left out of the analysis of what determines this use. New in our analysis is the focus on incident utilization. This provides a better estimate of the effects of predictors than a prevalence based analysis, as there is less confounding by changes in determinants occurring after LTC initiation. Especially the need of care is a strong factor. A policy implication of this relative importance of health status is therefore that LTC reforms should take health aspects into account.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Social Sciences 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 30 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2020.
All research outputs
#7,293,374
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,617
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,610
of 315,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#69
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.