Making Communities Age-Friendly: Lessons From Implemented Programs

Abstract

A growing number of programs promoted by planners and others have aimed to foster communities that support older people. Do such programs make a substantial difference? Through a scoping review of research evaluating WHO-style age-friendly community initiatives (AFCIs), we investigate what kind of outcomes such initiatives have achieved and factors facilitating or hindering them. Elements affecting implementation varied by geographies. They included external resources (e.g., government support, funding, consultants), local resources (e.g., community size, demographics, staff, infrastructure), engaged local participants (e.g., partnerships, champions, older people), and effective strategies to build support (e.g., quick wins, awareness building, cultural sensitivity).

Awareness and Perceptions of “Age-Friendly”: Analyzing Survey Results from Voices in the United States

“…The expanding footprint of age-friendly designations has driven inquiry into their benefits and impacts [ 19 ]. Many studies examine assessment methods for AFCs [ 19 ] and evaluate implementation outcomes [ 20 ]. Research exploring individual-level awareness of the term “age-friendly” in the context of AFCs and AFHSs is currently limited, though, and of importance to the field as aging-in-place and age-friendly community initiatives have been linked to ecological frameworks and the factors of the socio-ecological model [ 21 , 22 ].…”

“…The social ecological model of healthy aging, which articulates individual and social environmental factors as components of multi-level health promotion interventions, includes intrapersonal influences such as awareness and knowledge alongside community attributes and the policy environment [ 23 , 24 ]. Operationalizing this model, AFC initiatives often involve activities focused on building awareness among residents [ 25 ], with research on barriers and facilitators of AFCs identifying awareness-raising as a factor supporting successful implementation [ 20 ].…”