Preferences of people 50 years and older when thinking of their future care needs

Walbaum, Magdalena, Knapp, Martin ORCID: 0000-0003-1427-0215, Wittenberg, Raphael ORCID: 0000-0003-3096-2721 and McDermott, Jane (2024) Preferences of people 50 years and older when thinking of their future care needs. Journal of Long-Term Care, 2024. 42 - 53. ISSN 2516-9122

Text (Walbaum_preferences-of-people-50-years--published) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (685kB)

• Author
• Author
• Author
• Scopus publication

Abstract

Context: The growth in the older population and its diversity will impact the overall demand for social care and potentially affect patterns of preferences. Different initiatives have been implemented in England to improve care provision to make it more personalised, better informed and interconnected. Objective: To understand preferences for different aspects of models of social care for older people and to explore how those preferences might change in the future if their care needs increase. Methods: We conducted five focus groups (1.5 hours each) with people aged 50 years and older. Participants were selected using purposive sampling to capture the heterogeneity of the English population. We categorised comments during the focus groups into five themes (housing settings, community assets, use of technology, provision of care, control and dignity). The unit of analysis was the individual. Findings: People value their independence and control over their lives; they prefer models of care that allow them to have their own space for as long as possible. They emphasise the importance of community assets and attach high priority to maintaining social connections with their neighbours and having access to local facilities. Building a relationship with their care provider was essential to receiving good quality care. We found differences in preferences for some components of care between participants from different ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Limitations: The focus group discussions might have introduced social desirability bias. The design might limit representativeness of the sample. We included people from different ethnic and socioeconomic groups, but we could not include people from the widest range of religions or sexual orientations. Implications: Our study yielded rich insights into how people value different components of care, with differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups that highlight the need to ensure that care packages align with people’s individual preferences, beliefs and values. However, there is a noticeable lack of knowledge about the care options that people could access when planning for their future if their care needs increase.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://journal.ilpnetwork.org/
Additional Information:	© 2024 The Authors
Divisions:	Personal Social Services Research Unit Health Policy
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HQ The family. Marriage. Woman R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Date Deposited:	17 Nov 2023 15:45
Last Modified:	01 Apr 2024 08:39
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/120786

Actions (login required)

View Item