IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v18y1984i4p287-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public preferences for the care of dependency groups

Author

Listed:
  • West, Patrick
  • Illsley, Raymond
  • Kelman, Howard

Abstract

In the context of the continuing debate about how responsibility for the care of the disabled, chronically sick and elderly (collectively termed dependency groups) should be allocated as between the family and state and informal and formal caring agencies, this paper reports the basic findings of a survey of care preferences advocated by the public in three locations in Scotland, an urban metropolis, a large city and a small town in a rural setting. The results show that while there is little difference in preference patterns between the locations the public is discriminating in its support for care arrangements for patient/client groups with age-related physical and mental impairment. Overall, there is considerable support for a range of services termed community based professional care--day care centres, day hospitals and in respect of the elderly, sheltered housing. Residential care is less often preferred with the notable exception of senile dementia. Similarly, there is only limited support for informal care without professional involvement. The public, it seems, are not inclined to allocate the major responsibility for the care of dependency groups to the family and close kin preferring instead a continued policy of partnership between informal care systems and the welfare state in which the former does not replace the latter.

Suggested Citation

  • West, Patrick & Illsley, Raymond & Kelman, Howard, 1984. "Public preferences for the care of dependency groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 287-295, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:18:y:1984:i:4:p:287-295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90117-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:18:y:1984:i:4:p:287-295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.