Does informal care reduce public care expenditure on elderly care? Estimates based on Finland’s Age Study

Kehusmaa, Sari; Autti-Rämö, Ilona; Helenius, Hans; Rissanen, Pekka

doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-317

BMC Health Services Research

Table 2 Results of regression analysis showing the regression coefficients (β) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values for logarithm-transformed public expenditure on care

From: Does informal care reduce public care expenditure on elderly care? Estimates based on Finland’s Age Study

	MODEL 1=Rehabilitation + Care + Background variables					MODEL 2 = Rehabilitation + Health and Functional ability + Health-related Quality of Life					MODEL 3 = Rehabilitation + Care + Functional ability + Health-related quality of life					MODEL 4 = All variables
	MODEL 1					MODEL 2					MODEL 3					MODEL 4
Variable	β	(CI 95%)		p-value		β	(CI 95%)		p-value		β	(CI 95%)		p-value		β	(CI 95%)		p-value
Intercept	9.14	8.75	9.54	<0.0001	*	14.37	12.58	16.15	<0.0001	*	13.40	12.09	14.71	<0.0001	*	12.60	10.91	14.29	<0.0001	*
Rehabilitation
Yes	0.05	−0.11	0.21	0.5587		0.15	−0.02	0.33	0.0895		0.09	−0.07	0.25	0.2728		0.09	−0.07	0.25	0.2858
No	0					0					0					0
Care received
Informal care only for elderly living alone	−1.34	−1.70	−0.97	<0.0001	*						−1.21	−1.58	−0.84	<0.0001	*	−1.15	−1.53	−0.77	<0.0001	*
Informal care only from a co-resident family member	−1.54	−1.92	−1.16	<0.0001	*						−1.44	−1.81	−1.06	<0.0001	*	−1.42	−1.80	−1.04	<0.0001	*
A combination of formal and informal care	−0.07	−0.42	0.28	0.7081							−0.13	−0.48	0.22	0.4529		−0.10	−0.46	0.25	0.5628
Formal care only	0										0					0
Age group
65–74	−0.04	0.74	−0.29	0.2016												−0.01	−0.26	0.23	0.9157
75–84	0.12	0.28	−0.10	0.329												0.07	−0.14	0.28	0.5294
85+	0															0
Gender
Male	0.18	−0.07	0.43	0.1554												0.14	−0.11	0.39	0.2571
Female	0															0
Financial situation
Good	−0.12	−0.33	0.10	0.2937												−0.10	−0.32	0.11	0.3588
Average	0															0
Poor	0.09	−0.17	0.35	0.501												−0.09	−0.35	0.17	0.5014
Self-assessed health
Good						−0.06	−0.58	0.45	0.8095							−0.16	−0.63	0.31	0.4992
Average						−0.05	−0.27	0.18	0.6873							−0.17	−0.37	0.03	0.0956
Poor						0										0
IADL
Good						−0.51	−0.83	−0.19	0.0019	*						−0.34	−0.65	−0.04	0.0269	*
Medium						−0.16	−0.41	0.09	0.1981							−0.19	−0.42	0.04	0.1029
Poor						0										0
FIM™ score						−0.04	−0.05	−0.03	<0.0001	*	−0.03	−0.04	−0.02	<0.0001	*	−0.02	−0.04	−0.01	0.0001	*
GDS score						0.03	−0.01	0.07	0.1796							0.00	−0.03	0.04	0.8403
MMSE score						−0.03	−0.06	0.00	0.068							0.00	−0.03	0.03	0.9132
HRQoL 15D score						−0.10	−1.63	0.64	0.3918		−1.16	−2.01	−0.30	0.0079	*	−0.42	−1.45	0.62	0.4286
* (p < 0.05)

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com