Rural age-friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age-friendly communities

被引:7
作者
Liebzeit, Daniel [1 ,5 ]
Krupp, Anna [1 ]
Bunch, Jacinda [1 ]
Tonelli, Shalome [1 ]
Griffin, Emily [1 ]
McVeigh, Sarah [1 ]
Chi, Nai-Ching [1 ]
Jaboob, Saida [1 ]
Nakad, Lynn [1 ]
Arbaje, Alicia I. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Buck, Harleah [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Iowa, Coll Nursing, Iowa City, IA USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Ctr Transformat Geriatr Res, Dept Med, Div Geriatr Med & Gerontol,Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Univ, Armstrong Inst, Sch Med, Ctr Hlth Care Human Factors, Baltimore, MD USA
[5] Univ Iowa, Coll Nursing, 50 Newton Rd, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
关键词
community health services; delivery of healthcare; healthy aging; rural health services; rural population; PERSON-ENVIRONMENT FIT; PEOPLE; FRAMEWORK; CARE; PERSPECTIVES; PERCEPTIONS; INDICATORS; VIEWPOINT; POLICIES; CANADA;
D O I
10.1002/hsr2.1241
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background and AimsThe population of older adults in rural areas is rising, and they experience higher rates of poverty and chronic illness, have poorer health behaviors, and experience different challenges than those in urban areas. This scoping review seeks to (1) map the state of the science of age-friendly systems in rural areas regarding structural characteristics, processes for delivering age-friendly practices, and outcomes of age-friendly systems, (2) analyze strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats of age-friendly system implementation, and (3) make person, practice, and policy-level recommendations to support active aging and development of age-friendly communities. MethodsAn international scoping review was conducted of articles that used age-friendly framing, had a sample age of 45 years of age or older, self-identified as rural, and reported empiric data. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, AgeLine, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, and Academic Search Elite on October 26, 2021, and rerun March 10, 2023. Data were charted across three analytic layers: socioecological model, Donabedian's framework, and SWOT analysis. ResultsResults reveal limited data on outcomes relevant to organizations, such as return on investment or healthcare utilization. While the SWOT analysis revealed many strengths of age-friendly systems, including their impact on persons' outcomes, it also revealed several weaknesses, threats, and gaps. Namely, age-friendly systems have weaknesses due to reliance on trained volunteers and staff, communication, and teamwork. System-level threats include community and health system barriers, and challenges in poor/developing areas. ConclusionsWhile age-friendly systems in this review were heterogeneous, there is an opportunity to focus on unifying elements including the World Health Organization age-friendly cities framework or 4Ms framework for age-friendly care. Despite the many benefits of age-friendly systems, we must acknowledge limitations of the evidence base, pursue opportunities to examine organizational metrics to support implementation and sustainability of age-friendly systems, and leverage improvements in age-friendliness at a community level.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 108 条
[31]   Information Provision for an Age-Friendly Community [J].
Everingham, Jo-Anne ;
Petriwskyj, Andrea ;
Warburton, Jeni ;
Cuthill, Michael ;
Bartlett, Helen .
AGEING INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 34 (1-2) :79-98
[32]   Co-creating inclusive spaces and places: Towards an intergenerational and age-friendly living ecosystem [J].
Fang, Mei Lan ;
Sixsmith, Judith ;
Hamilton-Pryde, Alison ;
Rogowsky, Rayna ;
Scrutton, Pat ;
Pengelly, Ro ;
Woolrych, Ryan ;
Creaney, Rachel .
FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 10
[33]   Disability incidence and functional decline among older adults with major chronic diseases [J].
Fong, Joelle H. .
BMC GERIATRICS, 2019, 19 (01)
[34]   Moving Toward a Global Age-Friendly Ecosystem [J].
Fulmer, Terry ;
Patel, Pinkey ;
Levy, Nicole ;
Mate, Kedar ;
Berman, Amy ;
Pelton, Leslie ;
Beard, John ;
Kalache, Alexandre ;
Auerbach, John .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2020, 68 (09) :1936-1940
[35]   Age-friendliness of living environments from the older person's viewpoint: development of the Age-Friendly Environment Assessment Tool [J].
Garner, Ian W. ;
Holland, Carol A. .
AGE AND AGEING, 2020, 49 (02) :193-198
[36]   A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies [J].
Grant, Maria J. ;
Booth, Andrew .
HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, 2009, 26 (02) :91-108
[37]   Characterising older adults' engagement in age-friendly community initiatives: perspectives from core group leaders in the Northeast United States of America [J].
Greenfield, Emily A. ;
Reyes, Laurent .
AGEING & SOCIETY, 2022, 42 (06) :1465-1484
[38]   Age-Friendly Community Initiatives: Conceptual Issues and Key Questions [J].
Greenfield, Emily A. ;
Oberlink, Mia ;
Scharlach, Andrew E. ;
Neal, Margaret B. ;
Stafford, Philip B. .
GERONTOLOGIST, 2015, 55 (02) :191-198
[39]   Understanding ageing well in Australian rural and regional settings: Applying an age-friendly lens [J].
Hancock, Shaun ;
Winterton, Rachel ;
Wilding, Clare ;
Blackberry, Irene .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH, 2019, 27 (04) :298-303
[40]   Facilitators and barriers of change toward an elder-friendly surgical environment: perspectives of clinician stakeholder groups [J].
Hanson, Heather M. ;
Warkentin, Lindsey ;
Wilson, Roxanne ;
Sandhu, Navtej ;
Slaughter, Susan E. ;
Khadaroo, Rachel G. .
BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2017, 17