alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery

A Comparative Study of Operational Models and Economic Sustainability in The Elderly Care Market for Disabled and Dementia Patients in Urban China Under Population Aging

Xiuyue Song. Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences, 2025-07-08

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

In the context of an aging population, China’s elderly care market is experiencing a period of significant transformation. The demand for care for disabled and demented elderly people continues to grow, placing higher demands on the existing elderly care model. This study focuses on the home-based and institutional elderly care models, employing the PEST (political, economic, social, and technological) analysis framework to explore the operational characteristics, economic sustainability, and major challenges faced by the home-based and institutional elderly care models. The study found that in China, home-based elderly care occupies a mainstream position due to policy support and the influence of traditional concepts, but there are some changes such as a shortage of nursing resources, insufficient community support, and a low penetration rate of smart elderly care. Institutional elderly care offers distinct advantages in terms of professional nursing and the integration of medical care with elderly care. However, its affordability and market coverage are constrained by factors such as high costs, high consumption, mismatches between bed supply and demand, and disparities in regional development. Additionally, although the tax incentives in the elderly care market help reduce the cost of institutional elderly care, it is still difficult to alleviate the pressure on its operating costs. The affordability of some high-end elderly care institutions for ordinary families is still limited.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study compares home-based and institutional elderly care models in urban China for disabled and dementia patients, finding that home-based care is mainstream but faces nursing shortages and weak community support. Institutional care offers professional nursing but is constrained by high costs and mismatches between bed supply and demand.

Study details

How this study scored 28/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 0 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 0 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 27 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 28 of 100. Total 28 of 100.27 of the 96 points we could judge = 28 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 27 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 28 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences: journal h-index 14 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 0 / 7 Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year 0 / 6 Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 27 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 28 out of 100.
Total 28 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Song, X. (2025). A Comparative Study of Operational Models and Economic Sustainability in The Elderly Care Market for Disabled and Dementia Patients in Urban China Under Population Aging. Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54097/xvam3a66

Vancouver

Song X. A Comparative Study of Operational Models and Economic Sustainability in The Elderly Care Market for Disabled and Dementia Patients in Urban China Under Population Aging. Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025. doi:10.54097/xvam3a66.

BibTeX

@article{song2025-1b8873dd,
  author  = {Song, Xiuyue},
  title   = {{A Comparative Study of Operational Models and Economic Sustainability in The Elderly Care Market for Disabled and Dementia Patients in Urban China Under Population Aging}},
  journal = {Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.54097/xvam3a66},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.54097/xvam3a66}
}

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →