Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

Capturing how age-friendly communities foster positive health, social participation and health equity: a study protocol of key components and processes that promote population health in aging Canadians

Authors: Mélanie Levasseur, Marie-France Dubois, Mélissa Généreux, Verena Menec, Parminder Raina, Mathieu Roy, Catherine Gabaude, Yves Couturier, Catherine St-Pierre

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To address the challenges of the global aging population, the World Health Organization promoted age-friendly communities as a way to foster the development of active aging community initiatives. Accordingly, key components (i.e., policies, services and structures related to the communities’ physical and social environments) should be designed to be age-friendly and help all aging adults to live safely, enjoy good health and stay involved in their communities. Although age-friendly communities are believed to be a promising way to help aging Canadians lead healthy and active lives, little is known about which key components best foster positive health, social participation and health equity, and their underlying mechanisms.
This study aims to better understand which and how key components of age-friendly communities best foster positive health, social participation and health equity in aging Canadians. Specifically, the research objectives are to:
1)
Describe and compare age-friendly key components of communities across Canada
 
2)
Identify key components best associated with positive health, social participation and health equity of aging adults
 
3)
Explore how these key components foster positive health, social participation and health equity
 

Methods

A mixed-method sequential explanatory design will be used. The quantitative part will involve a survey of Canadian communities and secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). The survey will include an age-friendly questionnaire targeting key components in seven domains: physical environment, housing options, social environment, opportunities for participation, community supports and healthcare services, transportation options, communication and information. The CLSA is a large, national prospective study representative of the Canadian aging population designed to examine health transitions and trajectories of adults as they age. In the qualitative part, a multiple case study will be conducted in five Canadian communities performing best on positive health, social participation and health equity.

Discussion

Building on new and existing collaborations and generating evidence from real-world interventions, the results of this project will help communities to promote age-friendly policies, services and structures which foster positive health, social participation and health equity at a population level.
Literature
1.
2.
Turcotte M, Schellenberg G. A portrait of seniors in Canada 2006. Statistics Canada: Ottawa; 2007.
3.
Hébert R. Autonomy insurance: an essential innovation in response to the challenges of aging. Can J Aging. 2012;31(1):1–11.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Webber SC, Porter MM, Menec VH. Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive framework. The Gerontologist. 2010;50(4):443–50.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lindstrom B, Eriksson M. The hitchhiker’s guide to salutogenesis: salutogenic pathways to health promotion. Helsinki: Tuokinprint Oy; 2010.
6.
Roy M, Levasseur M, Couturier Y, Lindström B, Généreux M. The relevance of positive approaches to health for patient-centered care medicine. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2015;2:10–2.CrossRefPubMed
7.
World Health Organization: Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. In: 1st International Conference on Health Promotion. Ottawa: World Health Organization; 1986.
8.
Morgan A, Ziglio E. Revitalising the evidence base for public health: an assets model. Glob Health Promot. 2007;14(2):17–22.
9.
World Health Organization: Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Madrid: World Health Organization; 2002.
10.
Kalachea A, Kickbusch I. A global strategy for healthy ageing. World Health. 1997;50(4):4–5.
11.
Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psych Sci. 2015;10(2):227–37.CrossRef
12.
Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(6):843–57.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Newall N, McArthur J, Menec V. A longitudinal examination of social participation, loneliness, and use of physician and hospital services. J Aging Health. 2015;27(3):500–18.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Levasseur M, Gauvin L, Richard L, Kestens Y, Daniel M, Payette H, NuAge Study Group. Associations between perceived proximity to neighborhood resources, disability, and social participation among community-dwelling older adults: results from the VoisiNuAge study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(12):1979–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Levasseur M, Richard L, Gauvin L, Raymond E. Inventory and analysis of definitions of social participation found in the aging literature: proposed taxonomy of social activities. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(12):2141–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Fougeyrollas P. Le funambule, le fil et la toile : transformations réciproques du sens du handicap [the tightrope walker, wire and canvas. Reciprocal transformations of the meaning of disability]. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval; 2010.
17.
Zunzunegui MV, Alvarado BE, Del Ser T, Otero A. Social networks, social integration, and social engagement determine cognitive decline in community-dwelling Spanish older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003;58(2):S93–S100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Maier H, Klumb PL. Social participation and survival at older ages: is the effect driven by activity content or context. Eur J Ageing. 2005;2:31–9.CrossRef
19.
World Health Organization: Global age-friendly cities: a guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
20.
Verdonschot MML, de Witte LP, Reichrath E, Buntinx WHE, Curfs LMG. Impact of environmental factors on community participation of persons with an intellectual disability: a systematic review. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2009;53(1):54–64.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Hamzat TK, Kobiri A. Effects of walking with a cane on balance and social participation among community-dwelling post-stroke individuals. Eur J Phys Rehab Med. 2008;44(2):121–6.
22.
Desrosiers J, Robichaud L, Demers L, Gelinas I, Noreau L, Durand D. Comparison and correlates of participation in older adults without disabilities. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;49(3):397–403.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Desrosiers J, Noreau L, Rochette A. Social participation of older adults in Quebec. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004;16:406–12.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, Bergeron H, Cloutier R, Dion SA, St-Michel G. Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Inter J Rehabil Res. 1998;21(2):127–41.CrossRef
25.
Fujiwara Y, Watanabe N, Nishi M, Ohba H, Lee S, Kousa Y, Yajima S, Yoshida H, Fukaya T, Sakuma N, et al. Indirect effects of school volunteering by senior citizens on parents through the “REPRINTS” intergenerational health promotion program. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 2010;57(6):458–66.PubMed
26.
Meriano C, Latella D. Occupational therapy interventions. Function and occupations. Thorofare: SLACK Incorporated; 2008. p. 423–55.
27.
28.
Diderichsen F. Resource allocation for health equity: issues and methods. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2004.
29.
30.
Roy M, Généreux M, Laverdière E, Vanasse A. Surveillance of social and geographic inequalities in housing-related issues: the case of the eastern townships, Quebec (Canada). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(5):4825–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Généreux M, Roy M, Montpetit C, Azzou SAK, Gratton J. Regional surveillance of social and geographic inequalities in smoking: the case of Montréal, Canada. Health & Place. 2012;18(1):240–9.CrossRef
32.
Graham H. Tackling inequalities in health in England: remedying health disadvantages, narrowing health gaps or reducing health gradients? J Soc Policy. 2004;33(1):115–31.CrossRef
33.
Public Health Agency of Canada: Healthy Living E-Bulletin May 2010: Theme Age-Friendly Communities. In: vol. Ontario: Statistique Canada. Retrieved May 31 2010.
34.
Glass TA, Balfour JL. Neighborhoods, aging, and functional limitations. In: Kawachi I, Berkman LF, editors. Neighborhoods and health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 303–34.CrossRef
35.
Lawton MP, editor. Environment and aging (2nd edition). Monterey: Brooks/Cole; 1986.
36.
Walker RB, Hiller JE. Places and health: a qualitative study to explore how older women living alone perceive the social and physical dimensions of their neighbourhoods. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(6):1154–65.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Baum F, Palmer C. ‘Opportunity structures’: urban landscape, social capital and health promotion in Australia. Health Promot Int. 2002;17(4):351–61.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Clarke PJ, Ailshire JA, Lantz P. Urban built environments and trajectories of mobility disability: findings from a national sample of community-dwelling American adults (1986-2001). Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(6):964–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
40.
Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:977–88.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Richards JS, Bombardier CH, Tate D, Dijkers M, Gordon W, Shewchuk R, DeVivo MJ. Access to the environment and life satisfaction after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(11):1501–6.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Verbrugge LM, Rennert C, Madans JH. The great efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(3):384–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Vik K, Lilja M, Nygard L. The influence of the environment on participation subsequent to rehabilitation as experienced by elderly people in Norway. Scand J Occup Ther. 2007;14(2):86–95.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Horowitz BP. Occupational therapy home assessments: supporting community living through client-centered practice. Occup Ther Mental Health. 2002;18(1):1–17.CrossRef
45.
Levasseur M, Généreux M, Bruneau J-F, Vanasse A, Chabot É, Beaulac C, Bédard M-M. Importance of proximity to resources and to recreational facilities, social support, transportation and Neighbourhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: results from a scoping study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(503):1–19.
46.
Levasseur M, Cohen AA, Dubois M-F, Généreux M, Richard L, Therrien F-H, Payette H. Environmental factors associated with social participation of older adults living in metropolitan, urban and rural areas, from the NuAge study. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(8):1718–25.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Fitzgerald KG, Caro FG. An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. J Aging Soc Policy. 2014;26(1–2):1–18.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Buffel T, McGarry P, Phillipson C, De Donder L, Dury S, De Witte N, Smetcoren A-S, Verté D. Developing age-friendly cities: case studies from Brussels and Manchester and implications for policy and practice. J Aging Soc Policy. 2014;26(1):52–72.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Menec VH, Newall NE, Nowicki S. Assessing communities’ age-friendliness: How congruent are subjective versus objective assessments? J Appl Gerontol. 2016;35(5):549–65. doi:10.​1177/​0733464814542612​.
50.
Spina J, Menec VH. What community characteristics help or hinder rural communities in becoming age-friendly? Perspectives from a Canadian prairie province. J Appl Gerontol. 2015;34(4):444–64.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Garon S, Paris M, Beaulieu M, Veil A, Laliberté A. Collaborative partnership in age-friendly cities: two case studies from Quebec, Canada. J Aging Soc Policy. 2014;26(1–2):73–87.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Menec V, Bell S, Novek S, Minnigaleeva GA, Morales E, Ouma T, Parodi JF, Winterton R. Making rural and remote communities more age-friendly: experts’ perspectives on issues, challenges, and priorities. J Aging Soc Policy. 2015;27(2):173–91.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Sykes KE, Robinson KN. Making the right moves: promoting smart growth and active aging in communities. J Aging Soc Policy. 2014;26(1–2):166–80.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Menec VH, Hutton L, Newall N, Nowicki S, Spina J, Veselyuk D. How ‘age-friendly’ are rural communities and what community characteristics are related to age-friendliness? The case of rural Manitoba, Canada. Ageing Soc. 2015;35(1):203–23.CrossRef
55.
Scharlach AE, Lehning AJ. Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 2013;33(1):110–36.CrossRef
56.
Smith RJ, Lehning AJ, Dunkle RE. Conceptualizing age-friendly community characteristics in a sample of urban elders: an exploratory factor analysis. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2013;56(2):90–111.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Novek S, Menec VH. Older adults’ perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: a photovoice study. Ageing Soc. 2014;34(6):1052–72.CrossRef
58.
Menec VH, Nowicki S. Examining the relationship between communities’ ‘age-friendliness’ and life satisfaction and self-perceived health in rural Manitoba. Canada Rural and Remote Health. 2014;14(Online):2594.PubMed
59.
Paris M, Garon S, Bureau A, Nour K: Le développement collectif comme innovation sociale pour faire face au vieillissement de la population : Le cas de huit municipalités rurales en Montérégie. In: 5e Colloque internationale REIACTIS. Lausanne: REIACTIS; 2016.
60.
Menec VH, Means R, Keating N, Parkhurst G, Eales J. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Can J Aging. 2011;30(3):479–93.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Koster A, Penninx B, Newman A, Visser M, van Gool C, Harris T, van Eijk J, Kempen G, Brach J, Simonsick E, et al. Lifestyle factors and incident mobility limitation in obese and non-obese older adults. Obesity. 2007;15(12):3122–32.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Barton H, Grant M. A health map for the local human habitat. J Roy Soc Promot Health. 2006;126:252–3.CrossRef
63.
Levasseur M, Richard L, Gauvin L, Raymond É. Inventory and analysis of definitions of social participation found in the aging literature: toward a taxonomy of social participation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(12):2141–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
64.
Creswell J, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.
65.
Kirkland SA, Grifth LE, Menec V, Wister A, Payette H, Wolfson C, Raina PS. Mining a unique Canadian resource: the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. Can J Aging. 2015;34(3):366–77.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
67.
Richard L, Gauvin L, Gosselin C, Laforest S. Staying connected: neighbourhood correlates of social participation among older adults living in an urban environment in Montreal, Quebec. Health Prom Int. 2009;24(1):46–57.CrossRef
68.
Richard L, Gauvin L, Kestens Y, Shatenstein B, Payette H, Daniel M, Moore SD, Levasseur M, Mercille G. Access to local services and amenities conducive to social activity and social participation in a cohort of urban-dwelling older adults: results from the VoisiNuage study. J Aging Health. 2013;25(2):296–318.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Giatti L, Camelo Ldo V, Rodrigues JF, Barreto SM. Reliability of the MacArthur scale of subjective social status - Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1096.
70.
Singh-Manoux A, Marmot MG, Adler NE. Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosom Med. 2005;67(6):855–61.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Singh-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG. Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(6):1321–33.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Pampalon R, Hamel D, Gamache P, Philibert M, Raymond G, Simpson A. An area-based material and social deprivation index for public health in Quebec and Canada. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(Suppl. 2):S17–22.PubMed
73.
Statistics Canada: Standard Geographical Classification (SGC). Volume II Reference Maps, Catalogue No. 12–572 / Statistical Area Classification by Census Subdivisions, 2006 Reference Map, Catalogue No. 92–143-XIB. Ottawa: Geography Division, Statistics Canada, Minister of Industry, Government of Canada; 2006.
74.
Gauthier B. Recherche sociale: de la problématique à la collecte des données. 4th ed. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2004.
75.
Miles M, Huberman M, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
76.
Glasgow Centre for Population Health: Asset based approaches for health improvement: Redressing the balance. In: Glasgow. Scotland: Glasgow Centre for Population Health; 2011.
77.
Popay J: Incorporing qualitative information in systematic reviews. Paper presented at the 14th Cochrane colloquium, dunlin, Ireland. 2006.
78.
Parry D, Salsberg J, Macaulay A: Guide to researcher and knowledge-user collaboration in health research. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2006.
Metadata
Title
Capturing how age-friendly communities foster positive health, social participation and health equity: a study protocol of key components and processes that promote population health in aging Canadians
Authors
Mélanie Levasseur
Marie-France Dubois
Mélissa Généreux
Verena Menec
Parminder Raina
Mathieu Roy
Catherine Gabaude
Yves Couturier
Catherine St-Pierre
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4392-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Social-cognitive determinants of the tick check: a cross-sectional study on self-protective behavior in combatting Lyme disease

Research article

Perceived barriers to achieving a healthy weight: a qualitative study using focus groups at public and private schools in Guatemala City

Study protocol

Preventing sickness absenteeism among employees with common mental disorders or stress-related symptoms at work: Design of a cluster randomized controlled trial of a problem-solving based intervention versus care-as-usual conducted at the Occupational Health Services

Research article

The Start2Bike program is effective in increasing health-enhancing physical activity: a controlled study

Research article

Behavioral activation for smoking cessation and mood management following a cardiac event: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial

Research article

Lifestyle factors associated with obesity in a cohort of males in the central province of Sri Lanka: a cross-sectional descriptive study