Family support, housing, and care needs of older adults in South Korea

Figures & data

Table 1. Analysis contents.

Step	Analysis contents
1	Family care status - Type of family caregiver: Spouse, Son or daughter (living together, living independently), Parent (including spouse’s parent), Outsourcing - Gender and age - Sufficiency of help - Exchange of instrumental (IADL) and physical (ADL) support - Subjective evaluation of current life by type of family caregiver
2	Condition of current housing - Elderly-friendly housing equipment^a Not equipped (also, inconvenient structure in which to live) Not equipped Equipped - Subjective evaluation of current life by condition of current housing - Relationship between condition of current housing and type of family caregiver
3	Housing and care needs - Needs for home modification - Needs for care service based on government

^a To support accessibility of older adults, such as threshold removal, slope control, and handle installation.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics.

Item		n	%
Gender	Male	3971	40.0
	Female	5949	60.0
	Total	9920	100.0
Age (years)	65–74	5977	60.3
	75–84	3333	33.6
	Over 85	610	6.1
	Total	9920	100.0
Region	Capital Region (CR)^A	2765	27.9
	Non-CR metropolitan cities^B	2725	27.5
	Other areas^C	4430	44.7
	Total	9920	100.0
	1	3117	31.4
	2	5654	57.0
	3 − 4	989	10.0
	over 5	160	1.6
	Total	9920	100.0
	Single	3117	31.4
	Spouse/partner	5071	51.1
	Son/daughter (single)	926	9.3
	Son/daughter (married incl.other single son/daughter)	656	6.6
	Others^D	150	1.5
	Total	9920	100.0
Housing types	General detached house	3931	39.6
	Apartment	4700	47.4
	Multi-family house	1205	12.1
	Others^E	84	0.8
	Total	9920	100.0
Tenure type	Homeowner	7909	79.7
	Renter (Yearly)	813	8.2
	Renter (Monthly)	745	7.5
	Others^F	453	4.6
	Total	9920	100.0
Activities of daily living (ADL)	Fully independent	9499	95.8
	Partially independent	421	4.2
	Total	9920	100.0
Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL)	Fully independent	8918	89.9
	Partially independent	1002	10.1
	Total	9920	100.0

^A Capital Region (CR): Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi-do.

^B Non-CR metropolitan cities: Busan, Daegu, Gwangju, Daejeon, Ulsan (including Sejong).

^C Other areas: Gangwon-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongbuk-do, Jeollanam-do, Jeollabuk-do, Gyeongsangnam-do, Gyeonsangbuk-do, Jeju-do.

^D Married or unmarried son/daughter + parents (including spouse’s parents) or grandchildren, and other household members.

^E Including Officetel, detached houses for business use, non-residential buildings, non-residential buildings (shops, factories, inns), goshiwon (a tiny room for students), shacks, vinyl greenhouses, containers, huts, etc.

^F Including monthly renters without deposit, yearly, weekly, and daily renters, and no-rent occupant.

Figure 1. Subjective evaluation of current life (%).

Note. Self-reported health status was measured on a 5-point scale (1) Bad, (2) Poor, (3) Fair, (4) Good, and (5) Excellent.

Table 3. Type of family caregiver.

Type		n	%
Spouse		5589	56.3
Son or daughter	Living together	1456	14.7
	Living independently	6188	62.4
Parent		218	2.2
Outsourcing		1257	12.7
Total		9920	100.0

Note. As respondents were allowed to select all that applied, the sum of percentages exceeds 100.0.

Figure 2. Family care support by gender (%).

Spouse (x²= 1366.574, p = .000).

Son or daughter living together (x²= 22.459, p = .000).

Son or daughter living independently (x²= 3.965, p = .046).

Parent (x²= 5.471, p = .0.19).

Outsourcing (x²= 185.644, p = .000).

Figure 3. Family care support by age (%).

Spouse (x²= 578.940, p = .000).

Son or daughter living together (x²= 49.457, p = .000).

Son or daughter living independently (x²= 30.049, p = .000).

Parent (x²= 89.709, p = .000).

Outsourcing (x²= 14.492, p = .001).

Table 4. Sufficiency of help from family.

Family caregivers		n	Mean
Spouse		211	2.25
Son or daughter	Living together	120	2.40
	Living independently	331	2.14
Parent		6	2.33
Outsourcing		39	2.02
Total		707	2.23

Note. As respondents had one or more discomforts on the ADL or IADL. Item was measured on 5-point scale of (1: very insufficient − 5: very sufficient). ADL = Activities of daily living refers to capacities required for personal care, including walking, dressing, bathing, using the toilet, transferring from the bed to a chair, grooming, and eating (Hardy, 2014). IADL = Instrumental activities of daily living is more inclusive of the range of activities that support independent living in attempts to assess everyday functional competence, such as the ability to use the telephone, shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, mode of transportation, responsibility for medications, and the ability to handle finances (Lawton & Brody, 1969).

Figure 4. Exchange of Instrumental (cleaning, meal preparation, laundry) support between family members (points).

Note. Item was measured on a 4-point scale (1: not at all − 4: very much).

Figure 5. Exchange of physical (Nursing, caring, hospital accompaniment) support between family members (points).

Note. Item was measured on a 4-point scale (1: not at all − 4: very much).

Figure 6. Subjective evaluation of current life by type of family caregivers (points).

Note. Each item was measured on a 5-point scale.

Self-reported health status: (1) Bad, (2) Poor, (3) Fair, (4) Good, and (5) Excellent.

Satisfaction with overall life: (1) Not satisfied at all, (2) Not satisfied, (3) Fair, (4) Satisfied, (5) Very satisfied.

Satisfaction with current home: (1) Not satisfied at all, (2) Not satisfied, (3) Fair, (4) Satisfied, (5) Very satisfied.

Table 5. Condition of current housing.

Elderly-friendly equipment^a	n	%
Not equipped (also, inconvenient structure to live)	975	9.8
Not equipped	7078	71.4
Equipped	1867	18.8
Total	9920	100.0

^a To support the accessibility of older adults, such as threshold removal, slope control, handle installation, etc.

Table 6. Subjective evaluation of current life by condition of current housing.

Item	Elderly-friendly equipment	n	Mean	F	Duncan^A
Self-reported health status	Not equipped(also, inconvenient structure in which to live)	975	3.05	66.844 (.000)	a
	Not equipped	7078	3.35			b
	Equipped	1867	3.44				c
	Total	9920	3.34
Satisfaction with overall life	Not equipped(also, inconvenient structure in which to live)	975	3.29	77.642 (.000)	a
	Not equipped	7078	3.47			b
	Equipped	1867	3.62				c
	Total	9920	3.46
Satisfaction with current home	Not equipped(also, inconvenient structure in which to live)	975	3.32	353.700 (.000)	a
	Not equipped	7078	3.83			b
	Equipped	1867	3.99				c
	Total	9920	3.71

Note. Each item was measured on a 5-point scale. Refer to Table 3 for each scale.

Duncan^A Homogeneous subsets by Duncan’s Post hoc tests (p < .05).

Figure 7. Relationship between the condition of current housing and type of family caregivers (%).

Spouse (x²= 65.594, p = .000).

Son or daughter living together (x²= 14.610, p = .001).

Son or daughter living independently (x²= 29.431, p = .000).

Parent (x²= 11.746, p = .003).

Outsourcing (x²= 31.619, p = .000).

Table 7. Needs for home modification by the condition of current housing.

Elderly-friendly equipment	n	Mean	F	Duncan^A
Not equipped(also, inconvenient structure in which to live)	975	3.89	38.272 (.000)		b
Not equipped	7078	3.65		a
Equipped	1867	3.62		a
Total	9920	3.72

Note. Means measured on 5-point scale (1: not needed at all − 5: very much needed).

Duncan^A Homogeneous subsets by Duncan’s Post hoc tests (p < .05).

Figure 8. Needs of Home modification by type of family caregivers (%).

Note. This was measured on the 5-point scale (1 = not needed at all, 2 = not needed, 3 = unsure, 4 = needed, 5 = very needed), but the results were compared by simplifying it to a 3-point scale (not at all) needed, unsure, and (very) needed.

Spouse (x²= 8.806, p = .012).

Son or daughter living together (x²= 19.154, p = .000).

Figure 9. Needs for care service based on government (points).

Note. Means measured on 5-point scale (1: not needed at all − 5: very needed).

(Alphabet) subscripts below to bar graph refer to homogeneous subsets by Duncan’s Post hoc tests (p<.05) (a < b).

¹(F= 4.320, p< .05), ²(F= 10.753, p< .001), ³(F= 8.792, p< .001), ⁴(F= 20.267, p< .001), ⁵(F= 19.421, p< .001), ⁶(F= 7.165, p< .001).

Hardy, S. E. (2014). Consideration of function & functional decline. In B.A. Williams, A. Chang, C. Ahal, H. Chen, R. Conant, C. Landefeld, C. Ritchie, & M. Yukawa (Eds) Current Diagnosis & Treatment: Geriatrics. McGraw Hill.

 Google Scholar

Lawton, M., & Brody, E. (1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist, 9, 179–186. http://www.eurohex.eu/bibliography/pdf/Lawton_Gerontol_1969-1502121986/Lawton_Gerontol_1969.pdf

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Korean Elderly Survey 2020 Micro-data at https://data.kihasa.re.kr/kihasa/kor/databank/DatabankDetail.html, National Statistics Korea No. 117071.