Skip to main content

Table 5 Willingness-to-pay (HK$) for the attributes of care homes according to income, marital status, and caregiver’s age

From: Preference of caregivers on residential care homes for older persons with versus without communication problems: a discrete choice experiment

 

Lower income (<HK$15,000) (n = 172)

Higher income (HK$15,000+) (n = 79)

P valuea

Coeff.

95%CI

MWTP

Coeff.

95%CI

MWTP

Type of care homes: NGO care homes

0.41*

(0.14, 0.69)

1407.4

0.33*

(0.06, 0.61)

1418.3

0.676

Distance: half an hour to one hour travelling time

0.20

(− 0.08, 0.48)

 

0.13

(−0.14, 0.40)

 

0.724

Distance: Within half an hour travelling time

0.50*

(0.17, 0.82)

1681.7

0.10

(−0.23, 0.44)

 

0.101

Room type: shared room (2–3 people)

0.40*

(0.12, 0.68)

1357.0

0.24

(−0.03, 0.52)

 

0.437

Room type: single room

0.46*

(0.10, 0.83)

1575.9

0.40*

(0.05, 0.76)

1726.6

0.818

Manpower: more healthcare professionals

0.13

(−0.07, 0.32)

 

0.18

(0.00, 0.36)

 

0.719

Enhanced service: flexible choice of enhanced services

0.25*

(0.05, 0.45)

850.0

0.55*

(0.35, 0.74)

2345.2

0.037*

Copayment (per HK$1000)

−0.29*

(−0.41, − 0.18)

 

− 0.23*

(− 0.34, − 0.13)

 

0.438

Opt-out

−2.49*

(−3.13, −1.84)

 

−3.60*

(−4.57, −2.64)

 

0.060

 

Unmarried older persons (n = 216)

Married older persons (n = 67)

P valuea

Coeff.

95%CI

MWTP

Coeff.

95%CI

MWTP

Type of care homes: NGO care homes

0.36*

(0.15, 0.57)

1532.9

0.56*

(0.18, 0.94)

1540.0

0.358

Distance: half an hour to one hour travelling time

0.18

(−0.02, 0.39)

 

0.38

(0.00, 0.77)

 

0.371

Distance: Within half an hour travelling time

0.30*

(0.04, 0.55)

1270.1

0.50*

(0.04, 0.95)

1358.5

0.457

Room type: shared room (2–3 people)

0.35*

(0.14, 0.56)

1476.8

0.47*

(0.09, 0.85)

1285.7

0.577

Room type: single room

0.60*

(0.33, 0.88)

2582.3

0.47

(−0.03, 0.97)

 

0.647

Manpower: more healthcare professionals

0.16*

(0.01, 0.30)

675.7

0.26

(−0.01, 0.52)

 

0.526

Enhanced service: flexible choice of enhanced services

0.49*

(0.34, 0.64)

2104.1

0.09

(−0.19, 0.37)

 

0.012*

Copayment (per HK$1000)

−0.23*

(−0.32, − 0.15)

 

−0.37*

(− 0.51, − 0.22)

 

0.131

Opt-out

−2.87*

(−3.46, −2.28)

 

−2.43*

(−3.27, − 1.59)

 

0.406

 

Caregiver aged below 60 years (n = 137)

Caregiver aged 60+ years (n = 146)

P valuea

Coeff.

95%CI

MWTP

Coeff.

95%CI

MWTP

Type of care homes: NGO care homes

0.42*

(0.14, 0.70)

1514.8

0.39*

(0.15, 0.64)

1509.5

0.905

Distance: half an hour to one hour travelling time

0.54*

(0.26, 0.82)

1965.3

−0.04

(− 0.29, 0.20)

 

0.002*

Distance: Within half an hour travelling time

0.54*

(0.19, 0.88)

1947.1

0.22

(− 0.07, 0.52)

 

0.178

Room type: shared room (2–3 people)

0.50*

(0.23, 0.77)

1812.6

0.28*

(0.02, 0.53)

1058.0

0.242

Room type: single room

1.02*

(0.65, 1.40)

3713.6

0.19

(−0.13, 0.52)

 

0.001*

Manpower: more healthcare professionals

0.35*

(0.17, 0.54)

1280.8

0.03

(−0.14, 0.21)

 

0.014*

Enhanced service: flexible choice of enhanced services

0.52*

(0.33, 0.72)

1903.1

0.33*

(0.15, 0.51)

1263.2

0.156

Copayment (per HK$1000)

−0.28*

(−0.38, − 0.17)

 

− 0.26*

(− 0.36, − 0.16)

 

0.851

Opt-out

−2.60*

(−3.41, −1.80)

 

−2.85*

(−3.46, −2.24)

 

0.630

  1. *P < 0.05; the reference levels of the attributes are: 1) Type of care homes: private for-profit homes; 2) Distance: Over one hour travelling time; 3) Room type: Shared room (4–6 people); 4) Manpower: more care workers; and 5) Enhanced service: limited choices in enhanced services
  2. aThe P values in this column that were derived from the interaction terms of the regression models indicate the difference of coefficient estimates of the same attribute across different income levels, marital status, or caregiver’s age. The coefficients in the table were calculated by adding the coefficients of the attribute main effects and the coefficients of the interaction terms between the attribute and any of the income level, marital status or caregivers’ age. The 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Delta method. Original model outcomes can be found in supplementary Tables S7, S8 and S9