Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Pennsylvania recently developed “Aging Our Way” to guide age-friendly policies and programs. Age-friendly policies reduce physical and social barriers to participation, but little information is available on how older people and younger people with disabilities characterize the age-friendliness of their environments. This study assessed the perceptions of adults with disabilities across the life course using a web-based survey based on the Age-friendly Community framework. The survey was available online, promoted at public meetings conducted by Pennsylvania Department on Aging (PDA) staff, and distributed via affiliate organizations. Results (n = 5,072) show that younger adults with disabilities (age 21–59) report lower levels of participation in social and community activities than older adults (age 60 +). Older and younger people with disabilities face similar barriers (e.g., transportation and accessibility). Age-friendly features were consistently associated with better physical health and lower social isolation. Including younger adults with disabilities is important for informing the design and impact of age-friendly policies.

Keywords

age-friendly communities disability survey

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AARP . (2023). Age-friendly community survey. https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/network-age-friendly-communities/aarp-community-survey-questionnaire/

AARP . (2024). The 8 domains of livability: An introduction. Retrieved July 23, 2024 from. https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/network-age-friendly-communities/info-2016/8-domains-of-livability-introduction.html

Austin

B. A.

(1983). Factorial structure of the UCLA loneliness scale. Psychological Reports, 53(3 Pt 1), 883–889. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.883

Black

(2022). Assessing age-friendly community progress: What have we learned? The Gerontologist, 62(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab051

Blackwell

A. G.

(2016). The curb-cut effect. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 15(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.48558/YVMS-CC96

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services . (2016). CAHPS home and community-based services survey - Employment module. C. F. M. M. Services. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of-care/quality-of-care-performance-measurement/cahps-home-and-community-based-services-survey/index.html

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services . (2023). MCBS questionnaire user guide. https://www.cms.gov/data-research/research/medicare-current-beneficiary-survey/questionnaires/2023-questionnaires

Chaudhury

Oswald

(2019). Advancing understanding of person-environment interaction in later life: One step further. Journal of Aging Studies, 51, Article 100821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2019.100821

Choi

Y. J.

(2020). Age-friendly features in home and community and the self-reported health and functional limitation of older adults: The role of supportive environments. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 97(4), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00462-6

10.

Choi

Y. J.

(2022). Understanding aging in place: Home and community features, perceived age-friendliness of community, and intention toward aging in place. The Gerontologist, 62(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab070

11.

Fitzgerald

K. G.

Caro

F. G.

(2014). An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1-2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.860786

12.

Gendron

Camp

Amateau

Mullen

Jacobs

Inker

Marrs

(2024). The next critical turn for ageism research: The intersections of ageism and ableism. The Gerontologist, 64(2), gnad062. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnad062

13.

Gendron

Inker

J. K.

Andricosky

Zanjani

(2020). Development of the relational ageism scale: Confirmatory test on survey data. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 90(3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415019836956

14.

Greenfield

E. A.

Pestine-Stevens

Scher

(2022). Responding to local needs by mobilizing community assets: Age-friendly community initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Gerontologist, 62(10), 1431–1442. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac070

15.

Hays

R. D.

Bjorner

J. B.

Revicki

D. A.

Spritzer

K. L.

Cella

(2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 18(7), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9

16.

Hays

R. D.

Spritzer

K. L.

Reise

S. P.

(2021). Using item response theory to identify responders to treatment: Examples with the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS(R)) physical function scale and emotional distress composite. Psychometrika, 86(3), 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09774-1

17.

Kim

Buckley

T. D.

Burnette

Huang

Kim

(2022). Age-friendly communities and older adults' health in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), 9292. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159292

18.

Kivnick

H. Q.

Wells

C. K.

(2014). Untapped richness in Erik H. Erikson’s rootstock. The Gerontologist, 54(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt123

19.

Lawton

M. P.

(1983). Environment and other determinants of well-being in older people. The Gerontologist, 23(4), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/23.4.349

20.

Lawton

M. P.

Nahemow

(1973). Ecology and the aging process. In Eusdorfer

Lawton

M. P.

(Eds.), Psychology of adult development and aging. American Pyschological Association.

21.

Lawton

M. P.

Windley

P. G.

Byerts

T. O.

(1982). Aging and the environment: Theoretical approaches. Springer. https://books.google.com/books?id=_hQpAAAAYAAJ

22.

McAdams

D. P.

de St Aubin

(1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 1003–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.62.6.1003

23.

Neal

M. B.

DeLaTorre

A. K.

Carder

P. C.

(2014). Age-friendly Portland: A university-city-community partnership. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1-2), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.854651

24.

Park

S. Y.

Kim

Chung

(2021). Age-friendly environments and depressive symptoms among Korean adults: The mediating effects of loneliness. Aging & Mental Health, 25(6), 1060–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1755827

25.

Pennsylvania Department of Aging . (2024). Aging our way. https://www.aging.pa.gov/publications/MasterPlan/Pages/default.aspx

26.

Rubinstein

R. L.

Girling

L. M.

de Medeiros

Brazda

Hannum

(2015). Extending the framework of generativity theory through research: A qualitative study. The Gerontologist, 55(4), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu009

27.

Russell

Peplau

L. A.

Cutrona

C. E.

(1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.39.3.472

28.

Scharlach

A. E.

Davitt

J. K.

Lehning

A. J.

Greenfield

E. A.

Graham

C. L.

(2014). Does the village model help to foster age-friendly communities? Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1-2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.854664

29.

Terwee

C. B.

Peipert

J. D.

Chapman

Lai

J. S.

Terluin

Cella

Griffiths

Mokkink

L. B.

(2021). Minimal important change (MIC): A conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 30(10), 2729–2754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02925-y

30.

United States Census Bureau . (2023). American community survey (ACS). Retrieved July 23, 2024 from. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

31.

United States Public Health Service Office of the Surgeon General . (2023). Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation: The U.S. surgeon General’s advisory on the healing effects of social connection and community. U.S. Public Health Service. https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo212387.

32.

US Census . (2025). 2023 National Population Projections Tables: Main Series Retrieved May 29, 2025 from 2023.

33.

US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service . (2024). Rural-urban communiting codes. Retrieved July 23, 2024 from. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes.aspx

34.

Wahl

H. W.

Iwarsson

Oswald

(2012). Aging well and the environment: Toward an integrative model and research agenda for the future. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr154

35.

Williamson

(2019). Accessible America: A History of Disability and Design. NYU Press.

36.

World Health Organization . (2023). National programmes for age-friendly cities and communities: Toolkit. https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/

Can Age-Friendly Communities Also be Disability Friendly: What do Surveys of Older Adults and People With Disabilities Tell Us?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References