Assessment of Long-Term Care Service Needs in the Baby Boom Generation

Song Yi Han

doi:10.12799/jkachn.2016.27.1.21

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs > Volume 27(1); 2016 > Article

Original Article
Assessment of Long-Term Care Service Needs in the Baby Boom Generation: Song Yi Han; Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing 2016;27(1):21-30.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2016.27.1.21
Published online: March 31, 2016

College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

• Received: December 28, 2013 • Revised: January 12, 2016 • Accepted: March 22, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

1,212 Views
3 Download
1 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Purpose
This research was conducted to identify long-term care service needs in the baby boom generation.
Methods
Data were collected from September 3 to October 9, 2012 targeting 196 baby boomers residing in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do with the measurement of long-term care service needs having five domains. Collected data were analyzed using the SPSS 20.0 program.
Results
Demand for long term care service in those who preferred nursing homes was highest as 4.40±0.69 in the safe environment domain. In case of those preferring home care services, demand was highest as 4.37±0.56 in the social interaction domain. People who preferred nursing homes had higher needs in personal health care and improvement of the service quality domains. Those who preferred home care services showed diverse needs according to their characteristics.
Conclusion
The baby boom generation had high needs in all the domains of long-term care services and such needs were diverse according to their characteristics. However, long-term care services had limitations that they provided standardized and uniformed services only. Therefore, health care services and improved quality services should be provided in a way of meeting the users' needs, and tailored services should be provided in consideration of the users' characteristics.
Key Words: Baby boom; Long-term care; Needs; Nursing homes; Home care services

Table 1

General Characteristics and Differences between the Subjects who Preferred Nursing Homes and Home Care Services

Characteristics	Categories	Total (n=196)	Nursing homes (n=104)	Home care services (n=92)	x²	p
Characteristics	Categories	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	x²	p
Gender	Male	79 (40.3)	43 (41.3)	36 (39.1)	0.10	.752
Gender	Female	117 (59.7)	61 (58.7)	56 (60.9)	0.10	.752
Age (year)	50~53	90 (45.9)	51 (49.0)	39 (42.4)	0.87	.351
Age (year)	54~58	106 (54.1)	53 (51.0)	53 (57.6)	0.87	.351
Education level	≤Middle school	20 (10.3)	9 (8.7)	11 (12.0)	1.90	.386
	High school	93 (47.4)	54 (51.9)	39 (42.4)
	≥College	83 (42.3)	41 (39.4)	42 (45.6)
Job^†	White collar	116 (59.2)	61 (58.7)	55 (59.8)	1.65	.649
	Blue collar	24 (12.2)	13 (12.5)	11 (12.0)
	Housewife	41 (20.9)	22 (21.2)	19 (20.7)
	Unemployed	7 (3.6)	2 (1.9)	5 (5.4)
Religion^†	Christian	62 (31.6)	26 (25.0)	36 (39.1)	7.53	.057
	Buddhism	34 (17.3)	22 (21.2)	12 (13.0)
	Catholicism	32 (16.3)	14 (13.5)	18 (19.6)
	None	66 (33.7)	40 (38.5)	26 (28.3)
Marital status	Couple	174 (88.8)	90 (86.5)	84 (91.3)	1.11	.291
Marital status	Single	22 (11.2)	14 (13.5)	8 (8.7)	1.11	.291
Number of children	0 or 1	33 (16.8)	23 (22.1)	10 (10.9)	4.46	.107
	2	130 (66.3)	64 (61.5)	66 (71.7)
	≥3	33 (16.8)	17 (16.3)	16 (17.4)
Number of family members	1	12 (6.1)	8 (7.7)	4 (4.3)	4.57	.335
	2	38 (19.4)	25 (24.0)	13 (14.1)
	3	48 (24.5)	23 (22.1)	25 (27.2)
	4	83 (42.3)	41 (39.4)	42 (45.7)
	≥5	15 (7.7)	7 (6.7)	8 (8.7)
Monthly income (10,000 won)	<200	36 (18.4)	19 (18.3)	17 (18.5)	5.59	.134
	200~399	60 (30.6)	39 (37.5)	21 (22.8)
	400~599	61 (31.1)	29 (27.9)	32 (34.8)
	≥600	39 (19.9)	17 (16.3)	22 (23.9)
Subjective Economic status	Wealthy	39 (19.9)	24 (23.1)	15 (16.3)	1.41	.495
	Moderate	71 (36.2)	36 (34.6)	35 (38.0)
	Poor	86 (43.9)	44 (42.3)	42 (45.7)
Old age income (10,000 won)	<100	21 (10.7)	10 (9.6)	11 (12.0)	4.52	.341
	100~199	54 (27.6)	29 (27.9)	25 (27. 2)
	200~299	64 (32.7)	39 (37.5)	25 (27.2)
	300~399	37 (18.9)	19 (18.3)	18 (19.5)
	≥400	20 (10.1)	7 (6.7)	13 (14.1)
Residential area of the aged^†	Rural area	41 (20.9)	22 (21.2)	19 (20.7)	1.77	.413
	Big city	82 (41.8)	40 (38.5)	42 (45.7)
	Medium and small city	67 (34.2)	40 (38.5)	27 (29.3)
Subjective health status	Healthy	76 (38.8)	35 (33.7)	41 (44.6)	3.76	.153
	Moderate	91 (46.4)	55 (52.9)	36 (39.1)
	Unhealthy	29 (14.8)	14 (13.4)	15 (16.3)
Presence of disease	Yes	92 (46.9)	53 (51.0)	39 (42.4)	1.44	.230
Presence of disease	No	104 (53.1)	51 (49.0)	53 (57.6)	1.44	.230
Additional fee (10,000 won)	<20	66 (33.7)	36 (34.6)	30 (32.6)	0.61	.739
	20~39	67 (34.2)	33 (31.7)	34 (37.0)
	≥40	63 (32.1)	35 (33.7)	28 (30.4)
Service fee payer^†	Oneself	87 (44.4)	43 (41.3)	44 (47.8)	0.66	.416
Service fee payer^†	Other support	103 (52.6)	57 (54.8)	46 (50.0)	0.66	.416

^†Numbers of no response are excluded.

Table 2

Needs of Subjects who Preferred Nursing Homes (N=104)

Variables	M±SD	Minimum	Maximum
Personal health care	4.28±0.69	1.53	5.00
Respect for lifestyle	4.11±0.60	2.50	5.00
Social interaction	4.38±0.55	2.50	5.00
Improvement of service quality	4.34±0.64	1.29	5.00
Safe environment	4.40±0.69	1.00	5.00
Total	4.28±0.53	2.20	4.93

Table 3

Needs of Subjects who Preferred Home Care Services (N=92)

Variables	M±SD	Minimum	Maximum
Personal health care	4.19±0.68	1.07	5.00
Respect for lifestyle	3.83±0.72	1.38	5.00
Social interaction	4.37±0.56	1.83	5.00
Improvement of service quality	4.32±0.64	1.14	5.00
Safe environment	4.32±0.81	1.00	5.00
Total	4.18±0.56	1.25	4.83

Table 4

The Difference of Long-term Care Service Needs by Characteristics of Nursing Homes Preference Subjects (N=104)

Variables	Categories	n (%)	Personal Health care	Respect for lifestyle	Social interaction	Improvement of service quality	Safe environment
Variables	Categories	n (%)	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD
Gender	Male	43 (41.3)	4.07±0.72	4.07±0.57	4.35±0.57	4.16±0.79	4.28±0.64
	Female	61 (58.7)	4.44±0.62	4.14±0.63	4.39±0.53	4.46±0.49	4.49±0.71
	t (p)		-2.82 (.006)	-0.64 (.526)	-0.37 (.710)	-2.16 (.035)	-1.49 (.139)
Job	White collar	61 (58.7)	4.33±0.57	4.17±0.58	4.40±0.57	4.39±0.51	4.46±0.57
	Blue collar	13 (12.5)	3.75±1.05	3.74±0.46	4.14±0.67	3.91±1.03	4.12±1.10
	Housewife	22 (21.2)	4.51±0.49	4.33±0.55	4.45±0.38	4.56±0.41	4.50±0.60
	Unemployed	2 (1.9)	4.10±1.27	3.50±0.88	4.25±1.06	3.93±1.31	4.13±1.24
	F (p)		6.51 (.089)^†	3.92 (.011)	0.99 (.401)	5.54 (.136)^†	1.20 (.316)
Residential area of the aged	Rural area	22 (21.2)	3.97±0.91^a	4.03±0.63	4.12±0.74^a	4.03±0.81^a	4.19±1.04
	Big city	40 (38.5)	4.23±0.65^ab	4.13±0.57	4.49±0.43^b	4.38±0.48^ab	4.43±0.52
	M & S city	40 (38.5)	4.49±0.51^b	4.13±0.63	4.42±0.50^ab	4.45±0.66^b	4.47±0.59
	F (p)		4.40 (.015)	0.21 (.809)	3.44 (.036)	3.40 (.037)	1.23 (.296)
Presence of disease	No	51 (49.0)	4.44±0.56	4.15±0.61	4.38±0.52	4.46±0.44	4.59±0.54
	Yes	53 (51.0)	4.14±0.76	4.08±0.60	4.37±0.58	4.21±0.78	4.23±0.77
	t (p)		2.28 (.025)	0.58 (.561)	0.05 (.964)	2.02 (.047)	2.77 (.007)

M & S city=Medium & small city; a, b Scheffé's test (Residential area of old age : a<ab<b); ^†Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 5

The Difference of Long-term Care Service Needs by Characteristics of Home Care Services Preference Subjects (N=92)

Variables	Categories	n (%)	Personal Health care	Respect for lifestyle	Social interaction	Improvement of service quality	Safe environment
Variables	Categories	n (%)	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD
Age	50~53	39 (42.4)	4.05±0.85	3.63±0.83	4.31±0.64	4.26±0.71	4.25±0.96
	54~58	53 (57.6)	4.29±0.51	3.97±0.59	4.41±0.49	4.35±0.57	4.37±0.67
	t (p)		-1.59 (.116)	-2.25 (.027)	-0.86 (.395)	-0.66 (.508)	-0.72 (.474)
Number of family members	1	4 (4.3)	4.42±0.34	3.66±0.90	4.46±0.42	4.11±0.71	4.25±0.65
	2	13 (14.1)	4.23±0.40	3.99±0.60	4.33±0.50	4.23±0.71	4.40±0.53
	3	25 (27.2)	4.45±0.42	4.00±0.78	4.55±0.39	4.60±0.32	4.28±0.97
	4	42 (45.7)	4.13±0.80	3.74±0.70	4.28±0.65	4.23±0.70	4.35±0.83
	≥5	8 (8.7)	3.56±0.77	3.56±0.69	4.27±0.60	4.13±0.74	4.19±0.72
	F (p)		3.10 (.020)	0.99 (.416)	1.01 (.408)	1.87 (.124)	0.12 (.974)
Residential area of the aged	Rural area	19 (20.7)	4.16±0.70	3.94±0.78	4.39±0.39	4.42±0.45	4.26±1.02
	Big city	42 (45.7)	4.19±0.56	3.68±0.68	4.33±0.50	4.23±0.57	4.19±0.68
	M & S city	27 (29.3)	4.31±0.62	4.04±0.57	4.48±0.56	4.45±0.55	4.65±0.48
	F (p)		0.47 (.627)	2.66 (.075)	0.80 (.454)	1.57 (.215)	3.48 (.035)
Subjective health status	Healthy	41 (44.6)	4.04±0.86	3.79±0.80	4.43±0.65	4.26±0.72	4.26±0.85
	Moderate	36 (39.1)	4.24±0.50	3.72±0.65	4.24±0.44	4.30±0.55	4.23±0.84
	Unhealthy	15 (16.3)	4.49±0.33	4.19±0.52	4.49±0.55	4.49±0.58	4.70±0.45
	F (p)		4.52 (.015)^† 3.63 (.031)^‡	2.52 (.086)	1.56 (.216)	0.67 (.513)	2.04 (.136)

M & S city=Medium & small city;^†Welch test; ^‡Brown-Forsythe test.

This article is based on a part of the first author's master's thesis from Seoul National University.

1. Statistics Korea. World & Korea population prospects [Internet] Dajeon: Statistics Korea; 2009;cited 2011 December 8. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/2/6/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=65566
2. Statistics Korea. Characteristics of baby boom generation through socail survey [Internet] Dajeon: Statistics Korea; 2010;cited 2011 October 16. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/6/1/index.board?bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq=70430&pageNo=1&rowNum=10&navCount=10&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=
3. Statistical Research Institute. Analysis of baby boom generation's current status and retirement effect. [Internet] Daejeon: Statistical Research Institute; 2010;cited 2011 December 6. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr/edu/sri_kor_new/1/1/index.action?bmode=list&search_mode=&keyword=%EB%B2%A0%EC%9D%B4%EB%B9%84%EB%B6%90+%EC%84%B8%EB%8C%80%EC%9D%98+%ED%98%84%ED%99%A9+%EB%B0%8F+%EC%9D%80%ED%87%B4%ED%9A%A8%EA%B3%BC+%EB%B6%84%EC%84%9D&Search.x=0&Search.y=0
4. Edlund BJ, Lufkin SR, Franklin B. Long-term care planning for baby boomers: Addressing an uncertain future. Online J Issues Nurs. 2003;8(2):3.Article
5. Jung KH, Oh YH, Lee YK, Son CK, Park BM, Lee SY, et al. Research on actual conditions of elderly in 2011. Policy Report. Sejing: Ministry of Health and Welfare; Korea Institute for Health and Socail Affairs; 2012. April;Report No.: 11-1352000-000672-12.
6. Health care braces for boomers; one in six will have multiple chronic illnesses by 2030. Hosp Health Netw. 2007;81(6):71.
7. Lee HS. Health status and utilization of long-term care facility in the urban and rural aged. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2008;19(2):260–269.
8. Hong SW, Son HM. Family caregivers' experiences utilizing a nursing home for their elderly family members. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2007;37(5):724–735. Article PDF
9. Colombo F, Llena-Nozal A, Mercier J, Tjadens F. Help wanted? providing and paying for long-term care. Paris: OECD; 2011. p. 325.
10. National Health Insurance Corporation. Insurance Corporation. 2011 long term care insurance statistical yearbook. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2012. p. 699.
11. Jung KH. Characteristics and welfare needs of the Korean baby boom generation. Health Welf Policy Forum. 2011;174:5–10.
12. Kim SB. Consumption patterns of the baby boom generation and policy implications for age-friendly businesses. Health Welf Policy Forum. 2011;174:28–37.
13. Pratt JR. Long-term care: Managing across the continuum. 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Johns and Bartlett publishers; 2010. p. 519.
14. Williamson T. Baby boomers in transition. Work Older People. 2008;12(3):15–18.Article
15. Kim YW. A study of Korean baby boom generation's preparation for aged life. [master's thesis]. [Wonju]: Sang-ji University; 2010. 54 p.
16. Lee SJ. The characteristics of economic activities of the baby boom generation and policy implications. Health Welf Policy Forum. 2011;174:11–18.
17. Kim JS. Comparisons of health status and health care needs between institutionalized and community-living elders. [master's thesis]. [Jeonju]: Chonbuk National University; 2007. 65 p.
18. Yang YJ, Kim JH. Perceived needs for nursing of elders in a nursing home. J Korean Gerontol Nurs. 2007;9(2):115–123.
19. Kim IS, Kang SJ. Survey of nursing needs of the elderly in a long-term care facility. Med J Chosun Univ. 2007;32(3):62–70.
20. Huang JJ, Lin KC, Li IC. Service needs of residents in community-based long-term care facilities in northern Taiwan. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(1):99–108.Article PubMed
21. Statistics Korea. Analysys of baby boom generation s and ehcogenerations' sociodemographic characteristics [Internet] Daejeon: Statistics Korea; 2012;cited 2012 August 5. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr
22. Lee EO, Lim NY, Park HA, Lee IS, Kim JI, Bae JE, et al. Nursing research and statistical analysis. Seoul: Sumoonsa; 20009. p. 790.
23. Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd. Assessor handbook [Internet] Dajeon: Statistics Korea; 2011;cited 2011 December 8. Available from: http://www.accreditation.org.au/site/uploads/9210_AGEDCARE_Assessor%20Handbook_FINAL_V5_LO.pdf
24. Park BK. Increasing nursing homes are safe? [Internet] Internet news; 2012;May 22 cited 2012 December 15. Available from: http://i.wik.im/main/news_view.php?id=69626
25. Choi . Characteristics healthcare associated infections in Korean nursing homes [master's thesis]. [Seoul]: Seoulsity; 2009. 115 p.
26. Choi KH. Survey on health status and care needs of the longterm care insurance clients. [master's thesis]. [Gwangju]: Chonnam National University; 2009. 49 p.
27. Nam YC, Park KO. The present condition of nursing home & accessibility to health center and hospital from nursing home in rural area by web GIS analysis. J Korean Inst Rural Arch. 2010;12(4):29–37.
28. Moon CJ. Long term care insurance current status and directions. 3^rd anniversary ceremony and international symposium of long term care system. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare; Korea Institute for Health and Socail Affairs; National Health Insurance Corporation; 2011. June 29 p. 223.
29. Kim CW. Social effects of Korean NLTCI & strategics for establishing sustain ability. 3^rd anniversary ceremony and international symposium of long term care system. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare; Korea Institute for Health and Socail Affairs; National Health Insurance Corporation; 2011. June 29 p. 223.
30. Wada M. Present situation and the challenges of Japanese public care insurance system. 3^rd anniversary ceremony and international symposium of long term care system. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare; Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; National Health Insurance Corporation; 2011. June 29 p. 223.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

An Analysis of the Effects of the Income Level of the Family Caregivers for the Recipients in Long-Term Care facilities on the Willingness to Pay for Use of Better Services: A cross-sectional study
Jinhee Kwon, Eun-Jeong Han, Hyun Ki Kim
Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing.2023; 25(2): 103. CrossRef

PubReader
Cite

CITE

export Copy Format

Close

XML Download

We recommend

Assessment of Long-Term Care Service Needs in the Baby Boom Generation

Characteristics	Categories	Total (n=196)	Nursing homes (n=104)	Home care services (n=92)	x²	p
Characteristics	Categories	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	x²	p
Gender	Male	79 (40.3)	43 (41.3)	36 (39.1)	0.10	.752
Gender	Female	117 (59.7)	61 (58.7)	56 (60.9)	0.10	.752
Age (year)	50~53	90 (45.9)	51 (49.0)	39 (42.4)	0.87	.351
Age (year)	54~58	106 (54.1)	53 (51.0)	53 (57.6)	0.87	.351
Education level	≤Middle school	20 (10.3)	9 (8.7)	11 (12.0)	1.90	.386
	High school	93 (47.4)	54 (51.9)	39 (42.4)
	≥College	83 (42.3)	41 (39.4)	42 (45.6)
Job^†	White collar	116 (59.2)	61 (58.7)	55 (59.8)	1.65	.649
	Blue collar	24 (12.2)	13 (12.5)	11 (12.0)
	Housewife	41 (20.9)	22 (21.2)	19 (20.7)
	Unemployed	7 (3.6)	2 (1.9)	5 (5.4)
Religion^†	Christian	62 (31.6)	26 (25.0)	36 (39.1)	7.53	.057
	Buddhism	34 (17.3)	22 (21.2)	12 (13.0)
	Catholicism	32 (16.3)	14 (13.5)	18 (19.6)
	None	66 (33.7)	40 (38.5)	26 (28.3)
Marital status	Couple	174 (88.8)	90 (86.5)	84 (91.3)	1.11	.291
Marital status	Single	22 (11.2)	14 (13.5)	8 (8.7)	1.11	.291
Number of children	0 or 1	33 (16.8)	23 (22.1)	10 (10.9)	4.46	.107
	2	130 (66.3)	64 (61.5)	66 (71.7)
	≥3	33 (16.8)	17 (16.3)	16 (17.4)
Number of family members	1	12 (6.1)	8 (7.7)	4 (4.3)	4.57	.335
	2	38 (19.4)	25 (24.0)	13 (14.1)
	3	48 (24.5)	23 (22.1)	25 (27.2)
	4	83 (42.3)	41 (39.4)	42 (45.7)
	≥5	15 (7.7)	7 (6.7)	8 (8.7)
Monthly income (10,000 won)	<200	36 (18.4)	19 (18.3)	17 (18.5)	5.59	.134
	200~399	60 (30.6)	39 (37.5)	21 (22.8)
	400~599	61 (31.1)	29 (27.9)	32 (34.8)
	≥600	39 (19.9)	17 (16.3)	22 (23.9)
Subjective Economic status	Wealthy	39 (19.9)	24 (23.1)	15 (16.3)	1.41	.495
	Moderate	71 (36.2)	36 (34.6)	35 (38.0)
	Poor	86 (43.9)	44 (42.3)	42 (45.7)
Old age income (10,000 won)	<100	21 (10.7)	10 (9.6)	11 (12.0)	4.52	.341
	100~199	54 (27.6)	29 (27.9)	25 (27. 2)
	200~299	64 (32.7)	39 (37.5)	25 (27.2)
	300~399	37 (18.9)	19 (18.3)	18 (19.5)
	≥400	20 (10.1)	7 (6.7)	13 (14.1)
Residential area of the aged^†	Rural area	41 (20.9)	22 (21.2)	19 (20.7)	1.77	.413
	Big city	82 (41.8)	40 (38.5)	42 (45.7)
	Medium and small city	67 (34.2)	40 (38.5)	27 (29.3)
Subjective health status	Healthy	76 (38.8)	35 (33.7)	41 (44.6)	3.76	.153
	Moderate	91 (46.4)	55 (52.9)	36 (39.1)
	Unhealthy	29 (14.8)	14 (13.4)	15 (16.3)
Presence of disease	Yes	92 (46.9)	53 (51.0)	39 (42.4)	1.44	.230
Presence of disease	No	104 (53.1)	51 (49.0)	53 (57.6)	1.44	.230
Additional fee (10,000 won)	<20	66 (33.7)	36 (34.6)	30 (32.6)	0.61	.739
	20~39	67 (34.2)	33 (31.7)	34 (37.0)
	≥40	63 (32.1)	35 (33.7)	28 (30.4)
Service fee payer^†	Oneself	87 (44.4)	43 (41.3)	44 (47.8)	0.66	.416
Service fee payer^†	Other support	103 (52.6)	57 (54.8)	46 (50.0)	0.66	.416

Variables	M±SD	Minimum	Maximum
Personal health care	4.28±0.69	1.53	5.00
Respect for lifestyle	4.11±0.60	2.50	5.00
Social interaction	4.38±0.55	2.50	5.00
Improvement of service quality	4.34±0.64	1.29	5.00
Safe environment	4.40±0.69	1.00	5.00
Total	4.28±0.53	2.20	4.93

Variables	M±SD	Minimum	Maximum
Personal health care	4.19±0.68	1.07	5.00
Respect for lifestyle	3.83±0.72	1.38	5.00
Social interaction	4.37±0.56	1.83	5.00
Improvement of service quality	4.32±0.64	1.14	5.00
Safe environment	4.32±0.81	1.00	5.00
Total	4.18±0.56	1.25	4.83

Variables	Categories	n (%)	Personal Health care	Respect for lifestyle	Social interaction	Improvement of service quality	Safe environment
Variables	Categories	n (%)	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD
Gender	Male	43 (41.3)	4.07±0.72	4.07±0.57	4.35±0.57	4.16±0.79	4.28±0.64
	Female	61 (58.7)	4.44±0.62	4.14±0.63	4.39±0.53	4.46±0.49	4.49±0.71
	t (p)		-2.82 (.006)	-0.64 (.526)	-0.37 (.710)	-2.16 (.035)	-1.49 (.139)
Job	White collar	61 (58.7)	4.33±0.57	4.17±0.58	4.40±0.57	4.39±0.51	4.46±0.57
	Blue collar	13 (12.5)	3.75±1.05	3.74±0.46	4.14±0.67	3.91±1.03	4.12±1.10
	Housewife	22 (21.2)	4.51±0.49	4.33±0.55	4.45±0.38	4.56±0.41	4.50±0.60
	Unemployed	2 (1.9)	4.10±1.27	3.50±0.88	4.25±1.06	3.93±1.31	4.13±1.24
	F (p)		6.51 (.089)^†	3.92 (.011)	0.99 (.401)	5.54 (.136)^†	1.20 (.316)
Residential area of the aged	Rural area	22 (21.2)	3.97±0.91^a	4.03±0.63	4.12±0.74^a	4.03±0.81^a	4.19±1.04
	Big city	40 (38.5)	4.23±0.65^ab	4.13±0.57	4.49±0.43^b	4.38±0.48^ab	4.43±0.52
	M & S city	40 (38.5)	4.49±0.51^b	4.13±0.63	4.42±0.50^ab	4.45±0.66^b	4.47±0.59
	F (p)		4.40 (.015)	0.21 (.809)	3.44 (.036)	3.40 (.037)	1.23 (.296)
Presence of disease	No	51 (49.0)	4.44±0.56	4.15±0.61	4.38±0.52	4.46±0.44	4.59±0.54
	Yes	53 (51.0)	4.14±0.76	4.08±0.60	4.37±0.58	4.21±0.78	4.23±0.77
	t (p)		2.28 (.025)	0.58 (.561)	0.05 (.964)	2.02 (.047)	2.77 (.007)

Variables	Categories	n (%)	Personal Health care	Respect for lifestyle	Social interaction	Improvement of service quality	Safe environment
Variables	Categories	n (%)	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD
Age	50~53	39 (42.4)	4.05±0.85	3.63±0.83	4.31±0.64	4.26±0.71	4.25±0.96
	54~58	53 (57.6)	4.29±0.51	3.97±0.59	4.41±0.49	4.35±0.57	4.37±0.67
	t (p)		-1.59 (.116)	-2.25 (.027)	-0.86 (.395)	-0.66 (.508)	-0.72 (.474)
Number of family members	1	4 (4.3)	4.42±0.34	3.66±0.90	4.46±0.42	4.11±0.71	4.25±0.65
	2	13 (14.1)	4.23±0.40	3.99±0.60	4.33±0.50	4.23±0.71	4.40±0.53
	3	25 (27.2)	4.45±0.42	4.00±0.78	4.55±0.39	4.60±0.32	4.28±0.97
	4	42 (45.7)	4.13±0.80	3.74±0.70	4.28±0.65	4.23±0.70	4.35±0.83
	≥5	8 (8.7)	3.56±0.77	3.56±0.69	4.27±0.60	4.13±0.74	4.19±0.72
	F (p)		3.10 (.020)	0.99 (.416)	1.01 (.408)	1.87 (.124)	0.12 (.974)
Residential area of the aged	Rural area	19 (20.7)	4.16±0.70	3.94±0.78	4.39±0.39	4.42±0.45	4.26±1.02
	Big city	42 (45.7)	4.19±0.56	3.68±0.68	4.33±0.50	4.23±0.57	4.19±0.68
	M & S city	27 (29.3)	4.31±0.62	4.04±0.57	4.48±0.56	4.45±0.55	4.65±0.48
	F (p)		0.47 (.627)	2.66 (.075)	0.80 (.454)	1.57 (.215)	3.48 (.035)
Subjective health status	Healthy	41 (44.6)	4.04±0.86	3.79±0.80	4.43±0.65	4.26±0.72	4.26±0.85
	Moderate	36 (39.1)	4.24±0.50	3.72±0.65	4.24±0.44	4.30±0.55	4.23±0.84
	Unhealthy	15 (16.3)	4.49±0.33	4.19±0.52	4.49±0.55	4.49±0.58	4.70±0.45
	F (p)		4.52 (.015)^† 3.63 (.031)^‡	2.52 (.086)	1.56 (.216)	0.67 (.513)	2.04 (.136)

Table 1 General Characteristics and Differences between the Subjects who Preferred Nursing Homes and Home Care Services

^†Numbers of no response are excluded.

Table 2 Needs of Subjects who Preferred Nursing Homes (N=104)

Table 3 Needs of Subjects who Preferred Home Care Services (N=92)

Table 4 The Difference of Long-term Care Service Needs by Characteristics of Nursing Homes Preference Subjects (N=104)

M & S city=Medium & small city; a, b Scheffé's test (Residential area of old age : a<ab<b); ^†Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 5 The Difference of Long-term Care Service Needs by Characteristics of Home Care Services Preference Subjects (N=92)