Economic Value of Informal Care: Contingent Valuation From the Perspective of Caregivers and Care Recipients in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimated the monetary value of informal care from the perspectives of informal caregivers and care recipients in China using the contingent valuation method. Data were obtained from a specially designed survey of 1458 informal caregivers and 972 care recipients. The mean for caregivers' willingness to pay (WTP) for reducing informal care by 1 h per week was CNY32.37 (€4.11), while the mean for willingness to accept (WTA) increasing informal care by 1 h was CNY46.21 (€5.87). The mean for care recipients' WTP (WTA) values for increasing or reducing informal care by 1 h per week were CNY28.74 (€3.65) and CNY44.78 (€5.69), respectively. The WTP and WTA values varied according to care hours and tasks, kinship, and living arrangements, and correlated with the characteristics of both caregivers and care recipients. The WTP and WTA values were also sensitive to a broad range of factors such as health, level of education, employment status, and household income. We highlight the contribution made by informal caregivers to elderly care and recommend the promotion of informal care activities to support and incentivize them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".