Public trust in the long-term care insurance pilot program in China: An analysis of mediating effects.

Rong Peng, Wansha Zhang, Xueqin Deng, Bei Wu
Author Information
  1. Rong Peng: Institute of New Development, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou, China.
  2. Wansha Zhang: Institute of New Development, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou, China.
  3. Xueqin Deng: Institute of New Development, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou, China.
  4. Bei Wu: Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, New York City, NY, United States.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of the long-term care insurance (LTCI) pilot program in China through an examination of public trust in the system and its associated factors of insurance awareness and satisfaction with the LTCI policy.
Method: An online survey was used to collect data from 786 participants in the city of Guangzhou, one of the pilot sites of the LTCI. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to investigate the related factors of public trust in the LTCI. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to test the mediating effect of satisfaction with LTCI policy on the relationship between insurance awareness and public trust.
Results: More than 60% of participants gave a positive evaluation of the LTCI pilot program. More than 70% of the participants recognized the important role of the program. Both an understanding of insurance and satisfaction with LTCI policies were associated with public trust. The proportion of the indirect effect with regard to the total effect of satisfaction on trust was 70.133%, greater than the direct effect of 29.867%.
Conclusions: Our findings supported the hypothesis that satisfaction with the LTCI policy plays a mediating role between insurance awareness and public trust. Optimalization of the LTCI policy was recommended to improve public trust in the LTCI program.

Keywords

References

  1. BMC Public Health. 2020 Aug 5;20(1):1201 [PMID: 32758210]
  2. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 27;19(11): [PMID: 35682147]
  3. Res Aging. 2015 Feb;37(2):148-70 [PMID: 25651555]
  4. Health Policy. 2016 Jun;120(6):621-9 [PMID: 26831040]
  5. Aging Ment Health. 2012;16(8):983-92 [PMID: 22681404]
  6. Health Policy Plan. 2016 Dec;31(10):1391-1401 [PMID: 27375127]
  7. BMC Public Health. 2021 Oct 19;21(1):1886 [PMID: 34663271]
  8. SSM Popul Health. 2021 Nov 19;16:100974 [PMID: 34849390]
  9. BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 15;11(4):e043122 [PMID: 33858867]
  10. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Dec 22;15(1): [PMID: 29271906]
  11. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011 May 25;9:20 [PMID: 21609505]
  12. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2017 Jul;32(3):285-298 [PMID: 28664591]
  13. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2020 Jul 27;9(1):38 [PMID: 32718335]
  14. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 11;16(20): [PMID: 31614417]
  15. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Nov;36(4):717-31 [PMID: 15641418]
  16. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82 [PMID: 3806354]
  17. Health Policy. 2021 Oct;125(10):1359-1366 [PMID: 34481703]
  18. China CDC Wkly. 2021 Jul 9;3(28):593-598 [PMID: 34594944]
  19. Lancet. 2020 Oct 24;396(10259):1362-1372 [PMID: 34338215]
  20. J Bus Res. 2021 Oct 29;: [PMID: 34744211]
  21. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019 Oct;34(4):e1661-e1674 [PMID: 31385373]
  22. Vaccine. 2017 May 9;35(20):2661-2667 [PMID: 28396210]
  23. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1984 May;37 ( Pt 1):62-83 [PMID: 6733054]
  24. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 10;20(1):643 [PMID: 32650761]
  25. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2002 May;(542):1-6 [PMID: 12026937]
  26. Soc Sci Med. 2020 Aug;258:113081 [PMID: 32540515]
  27. Soc Sci Med. 2022 Mar;296:114745 [PMID: 35093795]
  28. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jun 26;21(1):602 [PMID: 34174873]

MeSH Term

China
Health Policy
Humans
Insurance, Long-Term Care
Personal Satisfaction
Pilot Projects
Program Evaluation
Public Opinion
Trust

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0LTCItrustinsurancepublicsatisfactionprogrameffectpilotawarenesspolicymediatinglong-termcareparticipantsassociatedfactorsusedroleObjective:studyaimedevaluateimplementationChinaexaminationsystemMethod:onlinesurveycollectdata786cityGuangzhouonesitesOrdinallogisticregressionmodelsinvestigaterelatedStructuralequationmodelingSEMconductedtestrelationshipResults:60%gavepositiveevaluation70%recognizedimportantunderstandingpoliciesproportionindirectregardtotal70133%greaterdirect29867%Conclusions:findingssupportedhypothesisplaysOptimalizationrecommendedimprovePublicChina:analysiseffects

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)