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
_version_ 1785037688143872000
author Liebzeit, Daniel
Krupp, Anna
Bunch, Jacinda
Tonelli, Shalome
Griffin, Emily
McVeigh, Sarah
Chi, Nai‐Ching
Jaboob, Saida
Nakad, Lynn
Arbaje, Alicia I.
Buck, Harleah
author_facet Liebzeit, Daniel
Krupp, Anna
Bunch, Jacinda
Tonelli, Shalome
Griffin, Emily
McVeigh, Sarah
Chi, Nai‐Ching
Jaboob, Saida
Nakad, Lynn
Arbaje, Alicia I.
Buck, Harleah
author_sort Liebzeit, Daniel
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10162383
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101623832023-05-06 Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities Liebzeit, Daniel Krupp, Anna Bunch, Jacinda Tonelli, Shalome Griffin, Emily McVeigh, Sarah Chi, Nai‐Ching Jaboob, Saida Nakad, Lynn Arbaje, Alicia I. Buck, Harleah Health Sci Rep Narrative Review 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10162383/ /pubmed/37152222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1241 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Narrative Review
Liebzeit, Daniel
Krupp, Anna
Bunch, Jacinda
Tonelli, Shalome
Griffin, Emily
McVeigh, Sarah
Chi, Nai‐Ching
Jaboob, Saida
Nakad, Lynn
Arbaje, Alicia I.
Buck, Harleah
Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities
title Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities
title_full Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities
title_fullStr Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities
title_full_unstemmed Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities
title_short Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities
title_sort rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: an international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities
topic Narrative Review
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT liebzeitdaniel ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT kruppanna ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT bunchjacinda ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT tonellishalome ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT griffinemily ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT mcveighsarah ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT chinaiching ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT jaboobsaida ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT nakadlynn ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT arbajealiciai ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities
AT buckharleah ruralagefriendlyecosystemsforolderadultsaninternationalscopingreviewwithrecommendationstosupportagefriendlycommunities