Figure 1

Research frameworks based on Andersen's behavioral model of service use.

Table 1

General Characteristics Before Propensity Score Matching (N=151)

Variables	Characteristics	Categories	Min~Max	Total (n=151)	CG (n=109)	IG (n=42)	Distance†	x2 or t (w)	p‡
				n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD
Predisposing characteristics	Gender	Male		47 (31.1)	34 (31.2)	13 (31.0)	<0.01	<0.01	.571
		Female		104 (68.9)	75 (68.8)	29 (69.0)
	Age		60~90	75.3±6.71	75.3±6.81	75.1±6.42	-0.19	0.15	.878
	Living arrangement	Alone		42 (27.8)	32 (29.4)	10 (23.8)		4.58	.206
		Spouse		52 (34.4)	32 (29.4)	20 (47.6)	0.18
		Adult children		48 (31.8)	38 (34.9)	10 (23.8)	-0.11
		Etc		9 (6.0)	7 (6.4)	2 (4.8)	-0.02
Enabling resources	Education		0~16	4.2±4.19	4.0±3.98	4.7±4.69	0.71	2,142.50	.519
	Religion	Yes		102 (67.5)	70 (64.2)	32 (76.2)	0.12	1.98	.179
		No		49 (32.5)	39 (35.8)	10 (23.8)
	Household's monthly income		2.87~696	117.3±127.39	124.8±138.80	97.9±89.92	-26.95
	Subjective life status		1~3	1.4±0.57	1.4±0.59	1.4±0.50	0.02	0.04	.849
Need	Number of chronic disease		0~9	2.3±1.56	2.0±1.58	2.9±1.49	0.42	1,910.50	.109
	Disabled	Yes		43 (28.5)	30 (27.5)	13 (31.0)	0.03	0.18	.409
		No		108 (71.5)	79 (72.5)	29 (69.0)
	Cognitive function		0~30	20.8±5.22	21.3±4.49	19.6±6.50	-1.73	2,601.50	.194
	Difficulty of daily living	DV (Yes)		35 (23.2)	26 (23.9)	9 (21.4)	-0.02	0.10	.467
		DH (Yes)		28 (18.5)	18 (16.5)	10 (23.8)	0.07	1.07	.210
		DM (Yes)		38 (25.2)	28 (25.7)	10 (23.8)	-0.02	0.06	.495

CG=comparison group; IG=intervention group; DV=due to vision; DH=due to hearing; DM=due to mastication; ^†Distance of mean different between matched comparison group and matched intervention group (PSM analysis); ^‡Comparison between the intervention group and the comparison group (χ² tests for categorical variables, t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables, Cochrane-Amitage Trend test for ordinary variables).

Table 2

General Characteristics After Propensity Score Matching (N=76)

Variables	Characteristics	Categories	Min~Max	MCG (n=38)	MIG (n=38)	Distance†	x2 or t (w)	p‡
				n(%) or M±SD	n(%) or M±SD
Predisposing characteristics	Gender	Male		7 (18.4)	11 (29.0)		1.17	.421
		Female		31 (81.6)	27 (71.1)	0.11
	Age		63~90	75.0±6.17	75.0±5.86	0.08	0.06	.951
	Living arrangement	Alone		5 (13.2)	10 (26.3)		3.39	.342
		Spouse		16 (42.1)	16 (42.1)	<0.01
		Adult children		16 (42.1)	10 (26.3)	-0.16
		Etc		1 (2.6)	2 (5.3)	0.03
Enabling resources	Education		0~16	4.2±4.01	4.7±4.86	0.50	2,142.50	.521
	Religion	Yes		29 (76.3)	28 (73.7)	-0.03	0.07	.996
		No		9 (23.7)	10 (26.3)
	Household's monthly income		2.87~586.2	122.6±131.77	96.7±93.93	-25.86	2,370.50	.740
	Subjective life status		1~3	1.3±0.55	1.4±0.49	0.11	0.04	.856
Need	Number of chronic disease		0~9	2.9±1.75	3.0±1.54	0.05	1,910.50	.117
	Disabled	Yes		12 (31.6)	13 (34.2)	0.03	0.06	.997
		No		26 (68.4)	25 (65.8)
	Cognitive function		0~30	20.3±4.81	20.8±5.18	0.50	2,601.50	.196
	Difficulty of daily living	DV (Yes)		9 (23.7)	8 (21.1)	-0.03	0.08	.999
		DH (Yes)		7 (18.4)	7 (18.4)	<0.01	<0.01	.999
		DM (Yes)		7 (18.4)	9 (23.7)	0.05	0.32	.786

MCG=matched comparison group; MIG=matched intervention group; DV=due to vision; DH=due to hearing; DM=due to mastication; ^†Distance of mean different between matched comparison group and matched intervention group (PSM analysis); ^‡Comparison between the intervention group and the comparison group (χ² tests for categorical variables, t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables, Cochrane-Amitage Trend test for ordinary variables).

Table 3

Difference in Difference Analysis after Propensity Score Matching (N=76)

Indicator		Groups	Pre-service (2008)	Post-service (2011)	Post-Pre	p	Min	Max
			M±SD	M±SD	M
Health status	Subjective health status	Intervention	8.4±1.55	4.3±1.23	-4.1		2	10
		Comparison	8.5±1.31	2.2±1.36	-6.3
		Difference			2.2	.044
	Depression	Intervention	8.8±4.75	10.3±4.19	1.6		0	15
		Comparison	8.8±4.88	10.7±4.41	1.9
		Difference			-0.3	.039
Physical function	Vision	Intervention	2.4±0.68	2.5±0.65	0.1		1	4
		Comparison	2.4±0.60	2.4±0.63	0.0
		Difference			0.1	.437
	Hearing	Intervention	2.7±0.57	2.6±0.64	-0.1		1	4
		Comparison	2.6±0.50)	2.6±0.49	0.0
		Difference			-0.1	.481
	Mastication	Intervention	2.3±0.57	2.1±0.67	-0.2		1	4
		Comparison	2.1±0.53	2.0±0.57	-0.2
		Difference			0.0	.880
	ADL	Intervention	19.4±1.48	18.7±2.21	-0.8		7	21
		Comparison	19.7±2.02	17.0±3.72	-2.7
		Difference			1.9	.027
	IADL	Intervention	28.7±5.56	27.8±5.57	-0.9		10	33
		Comparison	29.3±5.50	24.5±5.15	-4.8
		Difference			3.9	.030

ADL=activities of daily living; IADL=instrumental activity of daily living.

• 1. Statistics Korea. 2013 elderly statistics [Internet] Seoul: Statistics Korea; 2013;cited 2014 December 22. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr/wnsearch/search.jsp.
• 2. Sun WD, Kim CW, Im HY, Kim SO, Seo DM, Yang YA, et al. Latest elderly long-term care insurance. Seoul: Elderly Information Center of Korea; 2012. p. 290.
• 3. Park MH, Ha JC, Sihn IH, Kim HG, Lee SY, Cho JH, et al. 2008 the living status and welfare needs survey based analysis report. Analysis Report. Seoul: Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs; 2009. 02;Report No.: 11-1351000000316-12.
• 4. Long-term Care Insurance Corporation. Introduction of policy [Internet] Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2013;cited 2014 December 22. Available from: http://longtermcare.or.kr/portal/site/nydev/MENUITEM_LTCARE/.
• 5. Boyd CM, Reider L, Frey K, Scharfstein D, Leff B, Wolff J, et al. The effects of guided care on the perceived quality of health care for multi-morbid older persons: 18-month outcomes from a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(3):235–242. PMID: 10.1007/s11606-009-1192-5ArticlePubMedPDF
• 6. Lee YK. Evaluation of the elderly long-term care insurance: User's perspective. Health Welf Policy Forum. 2010;168:25–33.
• 7. Hyun KR, Kwon JH, Han EJ. A study on factors and improvement related to physical function change of LTC applicants. Analysis Report. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2010. 12 17 Report No.: 2010-20.
• 8. Hyun KR, Lee SM. Effects on the functional status changes of LTC (long-term care) services. J Korean Gerontol Soc. 2012;32(2):593–609.
• 9. Kwon HJ, Cho YW, Ko JY. The effects of long-term care insurance on the life satisfaction and satisfaction in family relationships - The DD method combined with propensity score matching. Korean J Soc Welf. 2011;63(4):301–326. Article
• 10. Park CJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of long term care services: Care in institutions vs in-home care. J Welf Aged. 2010;50:145–171.
• 11. Lee KE. Health outcomes for older adults with stroke in nursing home and home care [master's thesis]. [Seoul]: Yonsei University; 2013. 54 p.
• 12. Lee JS, Han EJ, Kang IO. The characteristics and service utilization of home nursing care beneficiaries under the Korean long term care insurance. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2011;22(1):33–44. Article
• 13. Lee AJ, Park YH, Hong MS, Lee PS, Choi KS, Kim CS. Performed the first anniversary of long-term care insurance visiting nursing service policy debate for the activation. Trend Analysis Report. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2009. 09 17 Report No.: 1000028627.
• 14. Jung YS. A study on home visiting nursing care and medical care utilization in the elderly patients with long-term care [dissertation]. [Gimhae]: Inje University; 2012. 103 p.
• 15. Kang SB, Kim HS. The relationship between home-visit nursing services and health care utilization among nursing service recommended beneficiaries of the public long-term care insurance. Health Policy Manag. 2014;24(3):283–290. PMID: 10.4332/kjhpa.2014.24.3.283Article
• 16. Kim MH. Development of home visiting nursing standards based on a long-term care insurance for the elderly program. J Korean Acad Public Health Nurs. 2010;24(2):285–301.
• 17. Moon KJ. Current status and problems of home visit nursing service within long term care insurance [master's thesis]. [Seoul]: Sungshin Women's University; 2011. 71 p.
• 18. Sumg MS, Jang HJ, Kim CG, Kang KH, Nam KA, Park JD. Comparative study of home nursing care services under the long-term care insurance system in four nations. J Korean Acad Public Health Nurs. 2010;24(2):211–225.
• 19. Kim MH. Roles of visiting nurses defined based on long-term care insurance regulation for the elderly. J Korean Acad Public Health Nurs. 2009;23(2):232–250.
• 20. Kim KH. Health needs of visiting health subjects evaluated by using RAI-MDS-HC 2.0. J Korean Soc Living Environ Syst. 2008;15(1):102–111.
• 21. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36(1):1–10. PMID: 10.2307/2137284ArticlePubMed
• 22. Elkan R, Kendrick D. What is the effectiveness of home visiting or home-based support for older people?. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe's Health Evidence Network (HEN); 2004. 06 19.
• 23. Patorno E, Grotta A, Bellocco R, Schneeweiss S. Propensity score methodology for confounding control in health care utilization databases. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2013;10(3):8941–8916. PMID: 10.2427/8940ArticlePDF
• 24. Lee TH, Ko YK, Kim BN, Kim HC, Kee IS, Jung SH, et al. Performance evaluation about operation the LTC insurance system: 3rd. clinical effects of LTC insurance and development of clinical indicator. Seoul: Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs; 2011. p. 181.
• 25. Lee MJ. A study on measurement issues of the quality of longterm care services for older adults. Soc Welf Policy. 2011;38(1):141–165. Article
• 26. Huber M, Hennessy P. Long-term care for older people. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2005. p. 138.
• 27. Lee JS, Han EJ, Kwon JH, Kang IO. Correlation analysis between standard LTC utilization plan and expenditures for long term care. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2008. p. 188.
• 28. Park JY, Lee YH, Kwon JH, Lee EM, Lee HY, Kim YH. Development of Integrated care model for LTC and medical service. Development Report. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2010. 10;Report No.: 2010-18.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Comparison between the Aged Care Facilities Provided by the Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) and the Nursing Hospitals of the National Health Insurance (NHI) for Elderly Care in South Korea
  Hyeri Shin
  Healthcare.2022; 10(5): 779.     CrossRef
• Examination of the Educational Needs of Home Visit Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study
  Kyuri Lee, Dukyoo Jung
  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(5): 2319.     CrossRef
• Development and Application of Cost Management Program for Visiting Nursing Centers Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing
  Juhang Kim, Ji Young Lim
  Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing.2019; 49(5): 586.     CrossRef
• Demand and willing to pay for oral hygiene service in long-term care insurance of elderly
  Han-Nah Kim, Gi-Yon Kim, Hie-Jin Noh, Nam-Hee Kim
  Journal of Korean Academy of Oral Health.2018; 42(4): 204.     CrossRef
• Association between home-visit nursing utilization and all-cause hospitalization among long-term care insurance beneficiaries: A retrospective cohort study
  Yeong Jun Ju, Hyo Jung Lee, Woorim Kim, Sang Ah Lee, Kyu-Tae Han, Eun-Cheol Park
  International Journal of Nursing Studies.2017; 75: 93.     CrossRef
• Regional Comparison of Home Visiting Care Service Satisfaction among Elder Beneficiaries of the Long Term Care Insurance
  Chanyeong Kwak
  Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing.2016; 27(2): 114.     CrossRef