Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liebzeit, Daniel, Krupp, Anna, Bunch, Jacinda, Tonelli, Shalome, Griffin, Emily, McVeigh, Sarah, Chi, Nai‐Ching, Jaboob, Saida, Nakad, Lynn, Arbaje, Alicia I., Buck, Harleah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10162383/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37152222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1241
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The 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. METHODS: An 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. RESULTS: Results 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. CONCLUSIONS: While 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.