Fischer, Johanna
Lade...
Preferred name
Fischer, Johanna
Official Name
Fischer, Johanna
Main Affiliation
Email
johanna.fischer@uni-bremen.de
ORCID
GND
6 Ergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 6 von 6
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item-typ:Veröffentlichung, Health and long-term care system introduction and reform – concepts and operationalisations for global and historical comparative research(2020-08-01); This paper presents a review of the existing health care, long-term care, health care systems and long-term systems definitions. It also provides guideline for operationalise health and long-term care systems introductions and reforms.BerichtBand:3372 278 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item-typ:Veröffentlichung, Comparative Assessment of Long-term Care System Generosity: Mapping Benefits and Inclusiveness Internationally(2025); Long-term care is a comparatively young but increasingly important social policy field. However, international comparative data on the topic are (still) scarce. Addressing this gap, this paper introduces a comprehensive framework for gauging LTC system generosity and presents our corresponding novel data, the Long-Term Care Benefits dataset (LTCB). Building on previous discussions in welfare research, we conceptualise generosity by means of two dimensions that depict the distribution and variety of LTC benefits: scope of benefits (what is provided and how much of it) and inclusiveness (who is entitled and eligible). More specifically, our resulting LTC generosity framework outlines 17 in-kind, cash and regulatory benefits for people in need of care as well as caregivers, plus criteria measuring benefit levels and the conditions that (potential) beneficiaries need to fulfil. In a second step, we applied the framework while collecting de jure information from laws and secondary sources on these different aspects of LTC system generosity. Covering a sample of 40 countries, our empirical analysis of the LTCB data finds that in-kind benefits are the most common benefit type and means-related co-payments are the most prevalent form of cost-sharing for LTC services. We also find great variety in the number and kind of eligibility criteria employed within and across countries, which also implies LTC system fragmentation. Furthermore, in line with welfare state research, inclusiveness in LTC is stricter in liberal welfare states than in Nordic countries. While our novel dataset offers the most comprehensive and systematic de jure data collection on LTC benefits so far, it also has several limitations, such as missing (standardised) data on the level of benefits and its limited information on the (de facto) relevance of benefit schemes and recipients.BuchBand:3196 72 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item-typ:Veröffentlichung, “WeSISdadia” – A Formalized Work-Flow for Uploading and Documenting Data for WeSIS and its Implementation as an R Package(2021-05); The technical paper introduces the R package "WeSISdadia" and the associated formalized semi-automatic workflow for processing and formatting data for the Collaborative Research Centre 1342's Global Welfare State Information System (WeSIS). As a background, the paper details the general WeSIS data upload process, including data specifications and data documentation on WeSISpedia. It lays out three components of the WeSISdadia work flow: a) crafting a so-called "lookup file" table with information for data formatting and documentation; b) the functions of the WeSISdadia R package; and c) using both tools for data documentation in WeSISpedia. In summary, compared to an unformalized manual procedure, the proposed workflow and tools substantially improve many aspects of pre-processing data for WeSIS, creating efficiency and maintainability while using synergies.BerichtBand:9263 186 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item-typ:Veröffentlichung, The classification of distinct long-term care systems worldwide: the empirical application of an actor-centered multi-dimensional typologyLong-term care (LTC) systems vary between countries in several ways. One important difference exists with regard to the question of who, that is which type of corporate actor, takes over the main responsibility in providing, financing and regulating LTC. In this article, we employ a multi-dimensional, actor-centered typology of LTC systems to classify all distinct LTC systems existing worldwide at the point in time when they were first established. In doing so, the article contributes to comparative LTC research by including novel cases and adding a historical perspective. Our 18 cases fall into eight types, which we combine tentatively into three distinct clusters: A predominantly state regulated and financed cluster, a state regulated cluster with mixed financing and provision, and a cluster with private regulation and provision plus societal financing. We find that the state plays the major role in regulation (dominant in 16 countries) and financing (dominant in 11 countries), while in provision we see a broader distribution with societal and private for-profit actors taking a major role. Interestingly, and in contrast to healthcare systems, no societal pure type emerges, not even among social insurance countries.Wissenschaftlicher ArtikelBand:12282 240 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item-typ:Veröffentlichung, The emergence of social policy in the field of long-term care. A comparative analysis of the introduction and types of long-term care systems in global perspective.While social protection measures against “old” social risks, such as sickness or work injury, have been introduced in large parts of the world since the late 19th century, social policies addressing “new” social risks are much less widespread. Long-term care (LTC), that is, the extended assistance with daily living resulting from impairments, constitutes one such novel risk that has, for a long time, not been recognized as a (distinct) field of social policy. However, this has increasingly changed in the last three decades, and many states throughout the world have introduced social protection measures for LTC. Against this backdrop, this cumulative dissertation examines LTC system introduction and variation globally, aiming to contribute an inter-regional and cross-temporal perspective on social policy in the field of elder care. More specifically, the research focuses on three phenomena, namely, (i) LTC systems under public responsibility, which entail the adoption of statutory entitlements to benefits, (ii) distinct LTC systems, which are additionally defined by a recognition of LTC as a specific social risk/policy field, and (iii) social long-term care insurance (SLTCI) systems as a specific type of distinct system that relies on social insurance principles, most notably compulsory social contribution funding. In doing so, four research questions stand in the center of the study: 1) Which countries have introduced LTC systems and at what time? 2) Which international interdependencies and domestic factors have influenced LTC system introduction? 3) How can a comprehensive and globally applicable typology for comparing LTC systems be configured? 4) How and to what extent do distinct LTC systems (generally) and social LTC insurance systems (in particular) vary?Dissertation372 228 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item-typ:Veröffentlichung, CRC 1342 Glossary of Terms for Social Policy Generosity(2024-03); ; The present Glossary, developed within the context of the Collaborative Research Centre 1342 (CRC 1342), aims to provide key concepts for social policy generosity research and analysis. In the existing literature, there is a considerable variation in the terminology used to describe “who receives what, under which conditions, and to what extent”. Terms such as “generosity”, “social rights”, “entitlements”, and “coverage” are often used interchangeably, while the conceptual frameworks for these terms also vary. To facilitate a common language and understanding, we propose a glossary of overarching, macro-level concept terms and definitions based on collaborative and iterative discussions within the CRC 1342. The Glossary defines generosity as consisting of two dimensions, inclusiveness and scope of benefits, and categorises social benefits into three main types: Cash, in-kind, and regulatory. This framework, which can be adapted according to different applications such as policy field, regional scope and/or research focus, aims to improve clarity and cohesion for collaborative and comparative research.BerichtBand:16432 246