Skip to main content

Health measures and long-term care use in the European frail population

Abstract

This paper explores the association between health measures and long-term care (LTC) use in the 70+ old population. We examine how different measures of health—subjective versus objective—predict LTC use, provided either formally or informally. We consider an absolute measure of subjective health, the grade given by the individual to his/her health status, and additionally construct a relative measure capturing the difference between this grade and the average grade given to health by individuals sharing the same characteristics. Conceptually, this difference comes from the perception of the individual, corresponding to both the private health information and the reporting behavior affecting self-rated health. We use the baseline data from the SPRINTT study, an ongoing randomized control trial on 1519 subjects facing physical frailty and sarcopenia (PF&S) in 11 European countries. Our sample population is older than 70 (mean: 79 years) and comprises a majority (71%) of women. Results show that self-rated health indicators correlate to formal care even when objective health measures are included, while it is not the case for informal care. Formal care consumption thus appears to be more sensitive to the individual's perception of health than informal care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Availability of data and materials

Data access is subject to approval from the SPRINTT consortium.

Code availability

STATA dofiles available upon request.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A 400-m walk test is also available in the data, but since walking speed is already considered in a subtest of the SPPB, we do not include it in our analysis of objective variables. The correlation coefficient between the SPPB score (either total or subtest) and the walking speed from the 400-m walk test is of about − 0.5.

  2. 2.

    To define an individual as frail, we use the cut-off points defined by the FNIH to categorize individuals: males whose grip strength is lower than 26 kg, and females whose grip strength is lower than 16 kg, are categorized in the “low grip strength'' category [53]. Similarly, males with an aLM lower than 19.75 kg and females with an aLM lower than 15.02 kg are in the “low aLM local'' category [54]. Regarding the SPPB score, we considered a threshold of 6 to identify frailest participants [55, 56]).

  3. 3.

    These domains are the following: heart, vascular, hematopoietic, respiratory, eyes/ears/nose/throat/larynx, upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI), liver, renal, genitourinary, musculoskeletal/intergument, neurological, endocrine/metabolic and breast, and psychatric.

  4. 4.

    This last variable is divided into three categories: (1) superior, corresponding to managers, administrators, skilled crafts, and professional, technical, and related occupations; (2) service, corresponding to military members, clerical and sales occupations, laborers; (3) manual, corresponding to farmers, operators, and related occupations.

  5. 5.

    The 106 individuals that are excluded because of missing values are more frequently women, living with someone (else than a spouse), having a lower number of children and education level, with and missing values for income and previous job.

  6. 6.

    AIC is − 2(LL − M) and BIC is − 2LL + MlnN where LL is the model log likelihood, M is the number of parameters, and N is the number of observations. They measure the loss of information coming from the model: the lower the indicator, the better.

  7. 7.

    A model including the number of medical diagnostics in categorical form rather than in linear form shows that the effect is driven by one category with several medical diagnostics and a low LTC use. Results are available upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    OECD: Chapter 11: Ageing and long-term care. In: Health at a Glance 2019 : OECD Indicators, Paris

  2. 2.

    OCDE: Health at a Glance 2019. (2019)

  3. 3.

    OECD: Who Cares? Attracting and Retaining Elderly Care Workers. OECD (2020)

  4. 4.

    Christianson, J.B.: The evaluation of the national long-term care demonstration: the effect of channelling on informal caregiving. Health Serv. Res. 23, 99–117 (1988)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ettner, S.L.: The effect of the medicaid home care benefit on long-term care choices of the elderly. Econ. Inq. 32, 103–127 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1994.tb01315.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Coughlin, T.A., McBride, T.D., Perozek, M., Liu, K.: Home care for the disabled elderly: predictors and expected costs. Health Serv. Res. 27, 453–479 (1992)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Stabile, M., Laporte, A., Coyte, P.C.: Household responses to public home care programs. J. Health Econ. 25, 674–701 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rapp, T., Grand, A., Cantet, C., Andrieu, S., Coley, N., Portet, F., Vellas, B.: Public financial support receipt and non-medical resource utilization in Alzheimer’s disease results from the PLASA study. Soc. Sci. Med. 72, 1310–1316 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Fontaine, R.: The effect of public subsidies for formal care on the care provision for disabled elderly people in France. Économie PubliquePublic Econ. 28–29, 271–304 (2012). https://doi.org/10.4000/economiepublique.8936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Roquebert, Q., Tenand, M.: Pay less, consume more? The price elasticity of home care for the disabled elderly in France. Health Econ. 26, 1162–1174 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pezzin, L.E., Kemper, P., Reschovsky, J.: Does publicly provided home care substitute for family care? Experimental evidence with endogenous living arrangements. J. Hum. Resour. 31, 650–676 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/146270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Roemer, C., Von Kondratowitz, H.-J.: Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing Soc. 25, 863–882 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X05003971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bonsang, E.: Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? J. Health Econ. 28, 143–154 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.09.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Carrino, L., Orso, C.E., Pasini, G.: Demand of long-term care and benefit eligibility across European countries. Health Econ. 27, 1175–1188 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Peng, R., Ling, L., He, Q.: Self-rated health status transition and long-term care need, of the oldest Chinese. Health Policy 97, 259–266 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.05.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hoeck, S., François, G., Geerts, J., Van der Heyden, J., Vandewoude, M., Van Hal, G.: Health-care and home-care utilization among frail elderly persons in Belgium. Eur. J. Public Health. 22, 671–677 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckr133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    de Meijer, C., Koopmanschap, M., d’Uva, T.B., van Doorslaer, E.: Determinants of long-term care spending: age, time to death or disability? J. Health Econ. 30, 425–438 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.12.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sicsic, J., Rapp, T.: Frailty transitions and health care use in Europe. Health Serv. Res. 54, 1305–1315 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Roquebert, Q., Kaboré, R., Wittwer, J.: Decentralized home care sector regulation and the demand for formal care. Rev. Déconomie Polit. 129, 1031–1054 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rochat, S., Cumming, R.G., Blyth, F., Creasey, H., Handelsman, D., Le Couteur, D.G., Naganathan, V., Sambrook, P.N., Seibel, M.J., Waite, L.: Frailty and use of health and community services by community-dwelling older men: the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project. Age Ageing. 39, 228–233 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afp257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fried, L.P., Tangen, C.M., Walston, J., Newman, A.B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., Seeman, T., Tracy, R., Kop, W.J., Burke, G., McBurnie, M.A.: Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J. Gerontol. Ser. A. 56, M146–M157 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sicsic, J., Ravesteijn, B., Rapp, T.: Are frail elderly people in Europe high-need subjects? First evidence from the SPRINTT data. Health Policy 124, 865–872 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.05.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Roquebert, Q., Sicsic, J., Santos-Eggimann, B., Sirven, N., Rapp, T.: Frailty, sarcopenia and long term care utilization in older populations: a systematic review. J. Frailty Aging (forthcoming)

  24. 24.

    Au, N., Johnston, D.W.: Self-assessed health: what does it mean and what does it hide? Soc. Sci. Med. 121, 21–28 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Idler, E.L., Benyamini, Y.: Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J. Health Soc. Behav. 38, 21–37 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2307/2955359

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    DeSalvo, K.B., Bloser, N., Reynolds, K., He, J., Muntner, P.: Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 21, 267–275 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00291.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jylhä, M.: What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Soc. Sci. Med. 69, 307–316 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hunt, S.M., McKenna, S.P., McEwen, J., Williams, J., Papp, E.: The Nottingham health profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc. Sci. Med. Part Med. Psychol. Med. Sociol. 15, 221–229 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-7123(81)90005-5

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Guralnik, J.M., Simonsick, E.M., Ferrucci, L., Glynn, R.J., Berkman, L.F., Blazer, D.G., Scherr, P.A., Wallace, R.B.: A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J. Gerontol. 49, M85–M94 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/49.2.M85

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    van Doorslaer, E., Gerdtham, U.-G.: Does inequality in self-assessed health predict inequality in survival by income? Evidence from Swedish data. Soc. Sci. Med. 57, 1621–1629 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00559-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Lindeboom, M., van Doorslaer, E.: Cut-point shift and index shift in self-reported health. J. Health Econ. 23, 1083–1099 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Spitzer, S., Weber, D.: Reporting biases in self-assessed physical and cognitive health status of older Europeans. PLoS ONE 14, e0223526 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223526

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Case, A., Paxson, C.: Sex differences in morbidity and mortality. Demography 42, 189–214 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2005.0011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Caroli, E., Weber-Baghdiguian, L.: Self-reported health and gender: the role of social norms. Soc. Sci. Med. 153, 220–229 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Layes, A., Asada, Y., Kephart, G.: Whiners and deniers—what does self-rated health measure? Soc. Sci. Med. 75, 1–9 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.10.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bound, J.: Self-reported versus objective measures of health in retirement models. J. Hum. Resour. 26, 106–138 (1991). https://doi.org/10.2307/145718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Groot, W.: Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self-assessments of quality of life. J. Health Econ. 19, 403–420 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00037-5

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Sen, A.: Health: perception versus observation. BMJ 324, 860–861 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Sainio, P., Koskinen, S., Heliövaara, M., Martelin, T., Härkänen, T., Hurri, H., Miilunpalo, S., Aromaa, A.: Self-reported and test-based mobility limitations in a representative sample of Finns aged 30+. Scand. J. Public Health. 34, 378–386 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/14034940500489859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Sakurai, R., Fujiwara, Y., Ishihara, M., Higuchi, T., Uchida, H., Imanaka, K.: Age-related self-overestimation of step-over ability in healthy older adults and its relationship to fall risk. BMC Geriatr. 13, 44 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-13-44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Syddall, H.E., Westbury, L.D., Cooper, C., Sayer, A.A.: Self-reported walking speed: a useful marker of physical performance among community-dwelling older people? J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 16, 323–328 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2014.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Merrill, S.S., Seeman, T.E., Stanislav, K.V., Berkman, L.F.: Gender differences in the comparison of self-reported disability and performance measures. J. Gerontol. Med. Sci. 52A, M19–M26 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Johnson, D.D.P., Fowler, J.H.: The evolution of overconfidence. Nature 477, 317–320 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10384

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Reuben, E., Wiswall, M., Zafar, B.: Preferences and biases in educational choices and labour market expectations: shrinking the black box of gender. Econ. J. 127, 2153–2186 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Arni, P., Dragone, D., Goette, L., Ziebarth, N.R.: Biased Health Perceptions and Risky Health Behaviors: Theory and Evidence. Social Science Research Network, Rochester (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ilinca, S., Calciolari, S.: The patterns of health care utilization by elderly europeans: frailty and its implications for health systems. Health Serv. Res. 50, 305–320 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Sirven, N., Rapp, T.: The dynamics of hospital use among older people evidence for Europe using SHARE data. Health Serv. Res. 52, 1168–1184 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Rapp, T., Chauvin, P., Sirven, N.: Are public subsidies effective to reduce emergency care? Evidence from the PLASA study. Soc. Sci. Med. 138, 31–37 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Barnay, T., Juin, S.: Does home care for dependent elderly people improve their mental health? J. Health Econ. 45, 149–160 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Costa-Font, J., Jimenez-Martin, S., Vilaplana, C.: Does long-term care subsidization reduce hospital admissions and utilization? J. Health Econ. 58, 43–66 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Landi, F., Cesari, M., Calvani, R., Cherubini, A., Di Bari, M., Bejuit, R., Mshid, J., Andrieu, S., Sinclair, A.J., Sieber, C.C., Vellas, B., Topinkova, E., Strandberg, T., Rodriguez-Manas, L., Lattanzio, F., Pahor, M., Roubenoff, R., Cruz-Jentoft, A.J., Bernabei, R., Marzetti, E., on behalf of the SPRINTT Consortium: The “Sarcopenia and Physical fRailty IN older people: multi-componenT Treatment strategies” (SPRINTT) randomized controlled trial: design and methods. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 29, 89–100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0715-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Marzetti, E., Cesari, M., Calvani, R., Msihid, J., Tosato, M., Rodriguez-Mañas, L., Lattanzio, F., Cherubini, A., Bejuit, R., Di Bari, M., Maggio, M., Vellas, B., Dantoine, T., Cruz-Jentoft, A.J., Sieber, C.C., Freiberger, E., Skalska, A., Grodzicki, T., Sinclair, A.J., Topinkova, E., Rýznarová, I., Strandberg, T., Schols, A.M.W.J., Schols, J.M.G.A., Roller-Wirnsberger, R., Jónsson, P.V., Ramel, A., Del Signore, S., Pahor, M., Roubenoff, R., Bernabei, R., Landi, F.: The “Sarcopenia and Physical fRailty IN older people: multi-componenT Treatment strategies” (SPRINTT) randomized controlled trial: case finding, screening and characteristics of eligible participants. Exp. Gerontol. 113, 48–57 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2018.09.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Studenski, S.A., Peters, K.W., Alley, D.E., Cawthon, P.M., McLean, R.R., Harris, T.B., Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J.M., Fragala, M.S., Kenny, A.M., Kiel, D.P., Kritchevsky, S.B., Shardell, M.D., Dam, T.-T.L., Vassileva, M.T.: The FNIH Sarcopenia Project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J. Gerontol. Ser. A. 69, 547–558 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Cawthon, P.M., Peters, K.W., Shardell, M.D., McLean, R.R., Dam, T.-T.L., Kenny, A.M., Fragala, M.S., Harris, T.B., Kiel, D.P., Guralnik, J.M., Ferrucci, L., Kritchevsky, S.B., Vassileva, M.T., Studenski, S.A., Alley, D.E.: Cutpoints for low appendicular lean mass that identify older adults with clinically significant weakness. J. Gerontol. A. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 69, 567–575 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu023

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    For the SPRINTT Consortium, Cesari, M., Landi, F., Calvani, R., Cherubini, A., Di Bari, M., Kortebein, P., Del Signore, S., Le Lain, R., Vellas, B., Pahor, M., Roubenoff, R., Bernabei, R., Marzetti, E.: Rationale for a preliminary operational definition of physical frailty and sarcopenia in the SPRINTT trial. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 29, 81–88 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0716-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Pahor, M., Guralnik, J.M., Ambrosius, W.T., Blair, S., Bonds, D.E., Church, T.S., Espeland, M.A., Fielding, R.A., Gill, T.M., Groessl, E.J., King, A.C., Kritchevsky, S.B., Manini, T.M., McDermott, M.M., Miller, M.E., Newman, A.B., Rejeski, W.J., Sink, K.M., Williamson, J.D.: Effect of structured physical activity on prevention of major mobility disability in older adults: the LIFE study randomized clinical trial. JAMA 311, 2387–2396 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.5616

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Oster, E.: Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: theory and evidence. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 37, 187–204 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Roquebert, Q., Fontaine, R., Gramain, A.: Caring for a dependent elderly parent: care arrangements and sibling interactions in France. Population. 73, 307–332 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3917/pope.1802.0307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Arrighi, Y., Davin, B., Trannoy, A., Ventelou, B.: The non-take up of long-term care benefit in France: a pecuniary motive? Health Policy 119, 1338–1348 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Pezzin, L.E., Schone, B.S.: Intergenerational household formation, female labor supply and informal caregiving: a bargaining approach. J. Hum. Resour. 34, 475–503 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2307/146377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Biró, A.: Differences between subjective and predicted survival probabilities and their relation to preventive care use. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy. 16, 807–835 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2015-0154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Picone, G., Sloan, F., Taylor, D.: Effects of risk and time preference and expected longevity on demand for medical tests. J. Risk Uncertain. 28, 39–53 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000009435.11390.23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    OECD: Measuring what matters: the Patient Reported Indicator Surveys. (2019)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreement no 115621, resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union’ Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) companies’ in kind contribution. It has benefited from valuable feedbacks from the participations of the seminar of Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Appliquée en Economie de la Santé (LIRAES EA4470) and from the workshop “Atelier bien-être” at the Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée (BETA UMR7522).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quitterie Roquebert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendices

Apppendix A: Details on the construction of the relative self-rated health indicator

This Appendix presents the construction of the relative SRH indicator. The procedure is inspired from the methodology proposed by Layes et al. [35], designed in three steps.

The first step consists in regressing the grade given to his/her health status by the individual on the objective health variables. The distribution of the subjective grade is described by Fig. 3. The mean grade given to health in our sample is 63.7, with a median value at 65 and a standard deviation of 18.6. In the objective variables, we include several clinical outcomes (SPPB, aLM, grip strength, number of medical diagnostics, MMSE, and CESD). These variables are interacted together to improve the predictive power of our model. We additionally include demographic dimensions (sex and age) and recent health events (hospital use in the last 6 months, fall in the last year), while controlling for the individual's country to compare people in similar context. We have tested several sets of variables in this first step and have finally chosen the combination that maximizes the explanatory power of our model (R2). The main characteristics of the different estimations which we have considered are summarized in Table 5. The comparisons of the different estimations show that the explanatory power of the model is considerably increased when including successively country fixed effects, presence of depressive symptoms, and recent health events. A flexible specification allowing interactions between the variables additionally contributes to improve the explanatory power of the model. M5 is the final model we have chosen to construct the relative indicator.

Fig. 3
figure3

Distribution of self-rated health in the sample. Sample: 1413 individuals included in the SPRINTT experiment

Table 5 Self-rated health regressed on objective variables

This step is described by the following equation:

$$S{H}_{i}= {\gamma }_{0}+{\gamma }_{1}{H}_{i}+{\gamma }_{2}{X}_{i}+{\gamma }_{3} {H}_{i}\#{H}_{i}+{\epsilon }_{i},$$

where \({H}_{i}\) is a set of objective health variables (SPPB, aLM, grip strength, number of medical diagnostics, cognitive troubles, depressive symptoms, hospitalization, and recent fall in Model 5), \({X}_{i}\) is a set of socio-demographic controls (age, sex, country fixed effects), and \({H}_{i}\#{H}_{i}\) is a set of interactions terms of each health variable.

In the second step, the estimation of this model is used to predict the health grade that can be expected from each individual, given his/her objective characteristics. The deviation of the expected grade of individual i (\(\widehat{S{H}_{i}}\)) from the observed grade \((S{H}_{i}\)) is denoted \(\text{dev}_{i}\) and is defined as:

$$\text{dev}_{i}=S{H}_{i}-\widehat{S{H}_{i}.}$$

This deviation measures the difference between the observed grade and the average grade given to health by individuals sharing the same objective characteristics.

We use this deviation to construct our relative SRH indicator. This indicator is regarded as positive when the observed grade is much higher than the expected grade (difference higher than one standard deviation). Conversely, the negative reporting corresponds to the situation when the observed grade is lower than the expected grade. Consistent reporting is the case when the observed grade is close to the expected grade (difference lower than one standard deviation).

Appendix B: Countries represented in the sample

  Number of observations (% of the sample)
Austria 51 (3.61)
Czech Republic 113 (8.00)
Finland 137 (9.70)
France 154 (10.9)
Germany 123 (8.70)
Iceland 23 (1.63)
Italy 421 (29.79)
The Netherlands 54 (3.82)
Poland 93 (6.58)
Spain 179 (12.67)
United Kingdom 65 (4.60)
  1. Sample: 1413 individuals included in the SPRINTT experiment

Appendix C: Alternative estimations

Appendix C.1: Functional forms

We test the sensitivity of our results to the functional form used in our baseline estimations. Instead of a biprobit model, we fit a system of seemingly unrelated regression equations (SURE). The two equations correspond to linear probability models and the model allows the unobserved determinants of the two types of care to be correlated. Our results are overall robust to this change in the functional form, even though it is associated with a loss a precision. In particular, the coefficient of the grade given to health overtakes conventional significant threshold (p value = 0.119) (Table 6).

Table 6 Test of the sensitivity of results to the functional form

Appendix C.2: Dealing with omitted variable bias

It is possible that an omitted variable affects both LTC use and perception. To test this hypothesis, we have implemented the procedure proposed by Oster [57] to evaluate robustness to omitted variable bias. Assuming the correlation between the unobserved variables and the variable of interest is proportional to the correlation between the observable controls and the variable of interest, this test makes it possible to compute a biased-adjusted coefficient for the main effect of interest. This coefficient depends on coefficient and R-squared movements when taking unobservables into account. The test can only be performed after linear regression models: we thus estimate independent linear probability models. A key input in the test is the hypothetical R-squared from a regression where both observed and unobserved controls are included. Following Oster [57], we assume that this value equals 1.3 times the observed R-squared of the regression. Since two variables cannot be tested simultaneously, we only include for the relative indicator the positive category, and the reference is then consistent and negative (both categories are not significantly different in our baseline estimations). Table 7 presents the identified set of regression coefficients concerning the correlation of subjective health measures with each LTC outcome. Since these sets exclude zero, the results from the baseline regressions can be considered robust to omitted variable bias.

Table 7 Oster tests

Appendix C.3: Intensive margin

In the main results, our interest variables are binary: we consider the utilization of formal care or informal care. Among individuals using care, however, volumes consumed might be highly heterogenous. In the experiment, individuals additionally provide information of the frequency of care provision and the average duration of each intervention. Though the volume declared is likely to be subject to measurement errors, it gives an insight of the total volume of care received by users. Seven subjects were lost, because they did not indicate the volume of IC/FC use.

We have estimated an alternative model considering the intensive margin of formal and informal care use. Explanatory variables are the log-number of hours declared by the individual. To deal with zero values of non-consumers, we add 1 to the value of these variables. According to Table 8, the sign of the association is unchanged, while absolute measure of SRH looses significance and the results on relative SRH are robust.

Table 8 Correlation of subject if health measures with formal care and informal care hours

Appendix C.4: Availability of informal caregivers

Variables Biprobit Biprobit Biprobit Biprobit
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Informal Formal Informal Formal Informal Formal Informal Formal
Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE)
Subjective health
 Grade (/100) − 0.715*** (0.249) − 0.631*** (0.228)    − 0.409 (0.261) − 0.301 (0.246)   
 Relative indicator
  Positive        − 0.110 (0.131) − 0.178 (0.125)
  Negative        0.197 (0.126) 0.067 (0.125)
  Ref: consistent
Objective health         
 Number of frailty indicators    0.131** (0.052) 0.167*** (0.049) 0.131** (0.052) 0.165*** (0.049) 0.135*** (0.052) 0.168*** (0.049)
 Medical diagnostics    0.091*** (0.028) 0.049* (0.029) 0.087*** (0.028) 0.046 (0.029) 0.094*** (0.029) 0.047 (0.029)
 Has been hospitalizeda    0.154 (0.111) 0.034 (0.109) 0.146 (0.111) 0.031 (0.109) 0.151 (0.112) 0.034 (0.109)
 Fell in the last year    0.290*** (0.106) 0.104 (0.107) 0.279*** (0.106) 0.095 (0.107) 0.295*** (0.106) 0.111 (0.107)
 Depressive symptoms (high CESD)    0.031 (0.093) 0.115 (0.087) 0.026 (0.094) 0.111 (0.087) 0.038 (0.094) 0.120 (0.087)
 Cognitive troubles (low MMSE)    0.267*** (0.097) 0.390*** (0.091) 0.235** (0.100) 0.369*** (0.094) 0.262*** (0.097) 0.389*** (0.092)
 Observations 1253 1253 1253 1253
  1. 1253 individuals included in the SPRINTT experiment and having spouse and/or children
  2. Robust standard errors in parentheses
  3. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. Coefficients from biprobit estimations. Country fixed effects are included
  4. aEmergency or hospital use during the last 6 months

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roquebert, Q., Sicsic, J., Rapp, T. et al. Health measures and long-term care use in the European frail population. Eur J Health Econ 22, 405–423 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01263-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Frailty
  • Sarcopenia
  • Self-rated health
  • Long-term care

JEL Classification

  • I31
  • J14