Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-7
Nurturing the Seeds of Participation: Unveiling the Foundational Path for Understanding Aging in Place Barriers and Facilitators From the Perspective of Older Adults Using Mixed Methods and Translational Science
Participation in society is a cornerstone for quality of life, active aging, and aging in place. While the majority of older adults prefer aging in place, health and financial challenges can hinder this vision. Conducted in suburban South Jersey, this study utilized mixed methods, including surveys and interviews with older adult participants. Surveys indicated that satisfaction with participation in the community is influenced by functional ability, healthcare service availability, and information access. Interviewees identified suggestions to overcome barriers (e.g., improve access to community and address ageism). Combined results provide a theory of change which suggests older adults’ empowerment in community participation hinges on home living support, participation options aligning with ability and interest, and accessible information on community events. This person-centered planning approach emphasizes the importance of older adult and stakeholder participation in foundational community planning, offering translational foundational tools for evidence-based strategies to engage them in future community action plans (CAPs).
Administration for Community Living. (2018). Justification of estimates for appropriations committees: FY 2018. Department of Health and Human Services.
2.
AlbertS. M. (2020). Convergence gerontology: Rethinking translation in research on aging. Innovation in Aging, 4(2): Article igaa003. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa003
3.
American Occupational Therapy Association [AOTA]. (2014). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process.
4.
AnnearM.KeelingS.WilkinsonT. I. M.CushmanG.GidlowB. O. B.HopkinsH. (2014). Environmental influences on healthy and active ageing: a systematic review. Ageing & Society, 34(4), 590–622. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1200116X
5.
ApplebaumR.KunkelS.HudsonR. B. (2018). The life and times of the aging network. Public Policy & Aging Report, 28(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/pry007
6.
BinetteJ.VasoldK. (2018). Home and community preferences: A national survey of adults age 18-plus. AARP research, Issues and Topics: Livable Communities.
BlackK.DobbsD.YoungT. L. (2015). Aging in community: Mobilizing a new paradigm of older adults as a core social resource. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 34(2), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464812463984
9.
BronfenbrennerU. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental psychology, 22(6), 723.
10.
BrownsonR. C.ColditzG. A.ProctorE. K. (2012). Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Oxford University Press.
11.
BusheG. R. (2001). Five theories of change embedded in appreciative inquiry. In CooperriderD.SorensonP.WhitneyD.YeagerT. (eds), Appreciative inquiry: An emerging direction for organization development (p. 117). Stipes.
12.
CagneyK. A.BrowningC. R.JacksonA. L.SollerB. (2013). Networks, neighborhoods, and institutions: An integrated “activity space” approach for research on aging. In New directions in the sociology of aging. National Academies Press (US).
13.
CarverL. F.BeamishR.PhillipsS. P.VilleneuveM. (2018). A scoping review: Social participation as a cornerstone of successful aging in place among rural older adults. Geriatrics, 3(4), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics3040075
ChippendaleT. L.Bear-LehmanJ. (2010). Enabling ‘aging in place’ for urban dwelling seniors: An adaptive or remedial approach?Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 28(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.3109/02703180903381078
16.
CorradoA. M.Benjamin-ThomasT. E.McGrathC.HandC.Laliberte RudmanD. (2020). Participatory action research with older adults: A critical interpretive synthesis. Gerontologist, 60(5), Article e413–e427. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz080
17.
CoganA. M.CarlsonM. (2018). Deciphering participation: An interpretive synthesis of its meaning and application in rehabilitation. Disability and rehabilitation, 40(22), 2692–2703.
18.
CooperriderD. L. (1986). Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understanding and enhancing organizational innovation. Doctoral dissertation. Case Western Reserve University.
19.
CrammJ. M.Van DijkH. M.NieboerA. P. (2018). The creation of age-friendly environments is especially important to frail older people. Ageing and Society, 38(4), 700–720. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X16001240
20.
CreswellJ.Plano ClarkV. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3 ed.). Sage Publishing.
21.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
22.
DamschroderL. J.AronD. C.KeithR. E.KirshS. R.AlexanderJ. A.LoweryJ. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science: IS, 4(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
23.
DavittJ. K.MadiganE. A.RantzM.SkempL. (2016). Aging in community: Developing a more holistic approach to enhance older adults’ well-being. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 9(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20151211-03
FunnellS. C.RogersP. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. Jossey-Bass.
26.
GitlinL. N.SzantonS. L.HodgsonN. A. (2013). It’s complicated-but doable: The right supports can enable elders with complex conditions to successfully age in community. Generations, 37(4), 51–61.
27.
GolantS. M. (2014). Age-friendly communities: Are we expecting too much?Institute for Research on Public Policy.
28.
GolantS. M. (2015). Aging in the right place. Health Professions Press.
29.
GrahamC. L.ScharlachA. E.StarkB. (2017). Impact of the village model: Results of a National survey. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 60(5), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2017.1330299
30.
GreenfieldE. A. (2016). Support from neighbors and aging in place: Can NORC programs make a difference?The Gerontologist, 56(4), 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu162
31.
GrippS. I.LuloffA. E.YonkersR. D. (1994). Reporting response rates for telephone surveys used in agricultural economics research. Agricultural & Resource Economics Review, 23(2), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500002318
32.
GustafssonS.FalkC.TillmanS.HoltzL.LindahlL. (2018). Life filming as a means of participatory approach together with older community-dwelling persons regarding their local environment. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 25(5), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2018.1502345
33.
IBM Corp. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows. IBM Corp. (Version 26).
34.
JanssonB. S. (2019). Social welfare policy and advocacy advancing social justice through eight policy sectors. Sage Publications.
35.
JuckettL. A.RobinsonM. L. (2018). Implementing evidence-based interventions with communitydwelling older adults: a scoping review. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(4), 7204195010p7204195011–7204195010p7204195019. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.031583
36.
KroenkeK.SpitzerR. L.WilliamsJ. B. W. (2003). The patient health questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 41(11), 1284–1292. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C
37.
LehningA. J. (2012). City governments and aging in place: Community design, transportation and housing innovation adoption. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr089
38.
LiS. (2020). Living environment, mobility, and wellbeing among seniors in the United States: A new interdisciplinary dialogue. Journal of Planning Literature, 35(3): 298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220914993
39.
LienL. L.SteggellC. D.IwarssonS. (2015). Adaptive strategies and person-environment fit among functionally limited older adults aging in place: A mixed methods approach. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(9), 11954–11974. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120911954
40.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (vol. 75).
41.
Lund ResearchL. (2012). Purposive sampling.
42.
MahJ. C.StevensS. J.KeefeJ. M.RockwoodK.AndrewM. K. (2021). Social factors influencing utilization of home care in community-dwelling older adults: A scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02069-1
43.
MarekK. D.StetzerF.AdamsS. J.PopejoyL. L.RantzM. (2012). Aging in place versus nursing home care: Comparison of costs to Medicare and Medicaid. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 5(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20110802-01
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3 ed.). Sage Publications.
46.
MenecV. H.MeansR.KeatingN.ParkhurstG.EalesJ. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30(3), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980811000237
47.
MiyashitaT.TadakaE.ArimotoA. (2021). Cross-sectional study of individual and environmental factors associated with life-space mobility among community-dwelling independent older people. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 26(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-021-00936-2
48.
MoulaertT.BoudinyK.ParisM. (2016). Active and healthy ageing: Blended models and common challenges in supporting age-friendly cities and communities. In Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison (pp. 277–304), Springer.
49.
MyrickE.Mosher-WilliamsR. (2020). PHC heart and Soul pilot communities learning project findings, lessons, and recommendations.
50.
National Association for State Community Services Programs. (2017). Guide to creating a local theory of change.
51.
National Quality Forum. (2016). Quality in home and community-based services to support community living: Addressing gaps in performance measurement.
52.
ParkerK.HorowitzJ. M.BrownA.FryR.CohnD.IgielnikR. (2018). What unites and divides urban, suburban and rural communities. Pew Research Center.
53.
PlouffeL.KalacheA.VoelckerI. (2016). A critical review of the WHO age-friendly cities methodology and its implementation. In Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison (pp. 19–36), Springer.
54.
PortneyL. G.WatkinsM. P. (2015). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
ScharlachA. E. (2016) Age-friendly cities: For whom? By whom? For what purpose? In Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison (pp. 305–329). Springer.
58.
SverkerA.ThybergI.ValterssonE.BjörkM.HjalmarssonS.ÖstlundG. (2020). Time to update the ICF by including socioemotional qualities of participation? The development of a “patient ladder of participation” based on interview data of people with early rheumatoid arthritis (the Swedish TIRA study). Disability and rehabilitation, 42(9), 1212–1219.
59.
SzantonS. L.ThorpeR. J.BoydC.TannerE. K.LeffB.AgreeE.XueQ. L.AllenJ. K.SeplakiC. L.WeissC. O. (2011). Community aging in place, advancing better living for elders: A bio-behavioralenvironmental intervention to improve function and health-related quality of life in disabled older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 59(12), 2314–2320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03698.x
60.
TerrellS. R. (2016). Writing a proposal for your dissertation: Guidelines and examples. The Guilford Press.
61.
TongA.SainsburyP.CraigJ. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
62.
ÜstünT. B.KostanjsekN.ChatterjiS.RehmJ. (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. World Health Organization.
63.
van der ZeeC. H. (2013). Measuring participation outcomes in rehabilitation medicine. Utrecht University.
64.
Von ElmE.AltmanD. G.EggerM.PocockS. J.GøtzscheP. C.VandenbrouckeJ. P. (2007). The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 370(9596), 1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
65.
WatchornV.HitchD.GrantC.TuckerR.AedyK.AngS.FrawleyP. (2021). An integrated literature review of the current discourse around universal design in the built environment–is occupation the missing link?Disability and rehabilitation, 43(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1612471
66.
WeilJ. (2019). Developing the person–place fit measure for older adults: Broadening place domains. The Gerontologist. 60(8), 548–558. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz112
67.
World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health Organization.
68.
World Health Organization. (2015). World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization.
69.
World Health Organization. (2018). The global network for age-friendly cities and communities: Looking back over the last decade, looking forward to the next. World Health Organization.
70.
WuH. C.TsengM. H. (2018). Evaluating disparities in elderly community care resources: Using a geographic accessibility and inequality index. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1353. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071353
71.
XuH.IntratorO. (2020). Medicaid long-term care policies and rates of nursing home successful discharge to community. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 21(2), 248–253.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2019.01.153
72.
YiY. M.ParkY.-H.ChoB.LimK.-C.JangS.-N.ChangS. J.KoH.NohE.-Y.RyuS. I. (2021). Development of a community-based integrated service model of health and social care for older adults living alone. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 825. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020825
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
