IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v76y2021i8p1691-1696..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Income-Related Inequalities in Informal Care: Evidence From the Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey in China

Author

Listed:
  • Yixiao Wang
  • Wei Yang
  • Mauricio Avendano
  • Zhen Cong

Abstract

ObjectivesThis report aims to examine income-related inequalities in informal care among older people with functional limitations in China.MethodsData are drawn from the 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 waves of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey. Erreygers concentration index, concentration index, and horizontal inequity index are used to examine inequalities in informal care. A random effects model is then used to investigate the relationship between household income and informal care.ResultsThere is no significant association between household income and the probability of receiving informal care. However, we observed a significant positive association between household income and hours of informal care received, indicating that those with higher household income receive more hours of informal care compared to those with lower household income. The degree of this inequality increases as the number of functional limitations increases.DiscussionLower household income is associated with lower intensity of informal care received, particularly for older people with more functional limitations. Policies are required to support low-income older people with more functional limitations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yixiao Wang & Wei Yang & Mauricio Avendano & Zhen Cong, 2021. "Income-Related Inequalities in Informal Care: Evidence From the Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey in China," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 76(8), pages 1691-1696.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:76:y:2021:i:8:p:1691-1696.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbab043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:geronb:v:76:y:2021:i:8:p:1691-1696.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    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.