Affiliation:
1. The University of Iowa College of Nursing Iowa City Iowa USA
2. Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Center for Transformative Geriatric Research Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA
3. Department of Health Policy and Management Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore Maryland USA
4. Armstrong Institute Center for Health Care Human Factors Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA
Abstract
AbstractBackground 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.
Reference108 articles.
1. World Health Organization.Active Ageing: A Policy Framework.World Health Organization;2002.https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67215
2. Moving Toward a Global
Age‐Friendly
Ecosystem
3. Age-Friendly Communities: Introduction to the Special Issue
4. Facilitators and barriers to becoming age‐friendly: a review;Menec V;J Aging Soc Policy,2018