Examining the underpinnings of decisions to allocate public resources to social care: A systematic review.

The increasing demand for social care, resulting from population ageing and the growing prevalence of chronic diseases and disabilities puts pressure on public resources. This trend necessitates decisions on the allocation of those resources to social care services. Several states have established explicit decision-making frameworks to inform resource-allocation decisions on healthcare to safeguard efficient and equitable access to healthcare services despite the scarcity of resources. While the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of such decisions on healthcare have been scrutinised, the underpinnings of resource-allocation decisions on social care remain unexplored. This study aims to contribute to filling this literature gap. We conducted a systematic literature search on seven databases following PRISMA guidelines. Based on the 42 articles included, we identified five different decision-makers (national, and local (health) authorities, case managers, service providers, and formal caregivers) responsible for resource-allocation decisions on social care on the macro, meso, and micro levels. We further developed a thematic framework consisting of 25 categories of underpinnings grouped under six themes that successively describe (cultural) norms and values, objectives, considerations, trade-offs, strategies, and factors that underlie and influence resource-allocation decisions. Our findings highlight the importance decision-makers attach to the provision of social care and the importance of informal caregivers for the sustainability of the social-care system on all decision levels. Furthermore, our findings highlight the strong competition with the healthcare system over resources and responsibilities, resulting in pressure on social care resource-allocation decision-makers to meet (post-)acute health needs in the short-term at the expense of longer-term social care needs. The multiplicity of decision-makers and variety of underpinnings signal the complexity of resource-allocation decisions on social care. To counterbalance the potential consequences of this complexity such as the potentially inequitable access to social care, decision-makers are advised to increase the consistency and transparency of decisions.