Lessons Learned From a Canadian Province-Wide Age-Friendly Initiative: The Age-Friendly Manitoba Initiative

Abstract

The Age-Friendly Manitoba Initiative was launched in 2008. A formative evaluation we conducted in 2011 with 44 participating rural and urban communities demonstrates considerable progress, with virtually all communities having formed an Age-Friendly Committee and conducting a community assessment to identify priorities for action. The majority of communities implemented one or more age-friendly projects. Major barriers to becoming age-friendly identified by participants included lack of funding; lack of capacity, particularly in small communities; and lack of leadership or direction. The study highlights the importance of strong leadership at all levels of government (municipal, provincial, federal); the need to support communities, particularly rural ones, as they try to become more age-friendly; and the importance of ongoing promotion of age-friendliness locally and more broadly (e.g., provincially).

An integrative review of the factors related to building age‐friendly rural communities

“…A consistent finding was the active involvement of older people in their communities as opposed to being passive recipients of services and supports (Keating et al 2013, Menec et al 2014b, Novek & Menec 2014, Walsh et al 2014. However, marginalised older people, who are not active participants in their communities require support and services that are sometimes not available (Keating et al 2013).…”

“…For others there was an interdependency between local systems that supported older people (Walsh et al 2014). Additionally, in some small rural communities, there was a perception that people could work together more easily as networks were already in place (Menec et al 2014b). …”

“…Six out of the nine included studies were qualitative (Keating et al 2013, Wiersma & Koster 2013, Menec et al 2014b, Novek & Menec 2014, Walsh et al 2014 and three studies were quantitative (Menec & Nowicki 2014, Menec et al 2014a. Various methods of data collection were used in the qualitative studies including, focus group discussions (Walsh et al 2014), individual interviews over the telephone , Menec et al 2014b, various combinations of focus groups, individual interviews and small group interviews or discussions (Keating et al 2013, Wiersma & Koster 2013, Novek & Menec 2014.…”

“…Various methods of data collection were used in the qualitative studies including, focus group discussions (Walsh et al 2014), individual interviews over the telephone , Menec et al 2014b, various combinations of focus groups, individual interviews and small group interviews or discussions (Keating et al 2013, Wiersma & Koster 2013, Novek & Menec 2014. The three quantitative studies were crosssectional, nonexperimental studies.…”

The Effectiveness of Healthy Community Approaches on Positive Health Outcomes in Canada and the United States

“…The review identified several narrative accounts of process evaluations of Age-Friendly Initiatives [48][49][50][51]. Despite this finding, there is a gap in knowledge about the holistic impact of Age-Friendly Initiatives on outcomes in the lives of older persons.…”