Beginning on an age‐friendly journey: Barriers to implementing age‐friendly initiatives

Abstract

Objective To explore the barriers to communities in New Zealand developing age‐friendly initiatives. Methods A qualitative participatory approach underpinned this study. Semi‐structured digitally recorded individual interviews were undertaken with 24 government officials, local government steering group members and community representatives from an urban city, provincial city and a rural district. A general inductive data analytic process was undertaken. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines were followed to ensure rigour in this study. Results (a) Being at the beginning, (b) Minimal diversity and (c) Problems getting started were three key issues identified. Conclusions New Zealand is in the early stages of becoming age‐friendly. Findings from this study provide a place‐based New Zealand perspective and have influenced central government social policy and practice development, culminating in resources supporting local government and communities to successfully implement age‐friendly initiatives.

Rural age‐friendly ecosystems for older adults: An international scoping review with recommendations to support age‐friendly communities

“… Community health, 68 sense of community, 38 and well‐being positively impacted by neighborhood characteristics, such as transportation and access to outdoor/indoor spaces 84 Built environment (housing, transportation) impact quality of life, 90 life satisfaction, and self‐perceived health 64 Exercise and recreational facilities associated with lower depression 59 Validated tool for AFS environment assessment 55,73 and community level indicators for AFS develped 53 AFS resulted in reduced length of stay and direct costs 32 Age‐friendly features associated with perceived age‐friendliness of community 46,57 AFS result in improved medication management, advanced care planning, and fall risk assessment 83 …”

“…Community health, 68 sense of community, 38 and well‐being positively impacted by neighborhood characteristics, such as transportation and access to outdoor/indoor spaces 84 …”

“…Evidence related to the process of delivering age‐friendly practices included a focus on: (1) individual roles 48,87 and identification of older adult priorities 31,49 ; (2) interpersonal communication, collaboration, and partnership 26,30,48,77,94 ; (3) organizational workflow, 29,31,80 electronic health records, 81 congruence/readiness, 58,62,88 staff training, preparedness, 25,50,80 and engagement, 73,76 and evaluation 65,66 ; and (4) environmental evaluation 45,55 and barriers or challenges 68,84 …”

“…Main threats to age-friendly systems identified at the person level were differences in individual perceptions and acceptance of roles and importance 48,54,86 of champions (e.g., advocates) and partnerships 77 and need to educate service providers to support older adults. 57 Main threats to age-friendly systems identified at the system level were readiness for change, 48,51 adapting to needs of older adults, 36,56,85,89 community 44,63,68,77,78,82 and health system 31,62,66,81 barriers, challenges in poor/developing areas, 84,88 and additional COVID-19 related barriers. 28…”

“…30,48 Therefore, if a health system or community is lacking special age-friendly training or strong existing communication or teamwork, implementation of age-friendly practices may be unsuccessful. Many system-level threats to agefriendly system implementation and sustainability were identified, including community 44,63,68,77,78,82 and health system 31,62,66,81 barriers, additional COVID-19 related barriers, 28 and challenges in low resource areas. 84,88 Only a few studies in this review focused on agefriendly systems in low resource areas, and they identified specific challenges.…”