Third Places for Older Adults’ Social Engagement: A Scoping Review and Research Agenda

Abstract

Background and Objectives Neighbourhood places that facilitate older residents to meet and interact (third places) receive an increasing research interest as studies have consistently shown the benefits of social engagement for older adults’ health. This scoping review synthesised the findings of studies examining the role of third places in older adults’ social engagement. Research Design and Methods Searching five databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science) in October 2021, this study identified quantitative and qualitative studies that examined the relationships between third places and social engagement (interaction and network) amongst older adults. Results A total of 32 studies (12 quantitative and 20 qualitative studies) met the eligibility criteria. These studies examined four types of third place, namely, community facilities, local businesses, open/green spaces and transition spaces. More than two-thirds of the studies reviewed found that access to community facilities, local businesses and open/green spaces were related to older adults’ social interaction. For the relationships between third places and social networks, the importance of accessible local businesses and the quality of open/green spaces was supported by fewer studies. Discussion and Implications The findings of quantitative and qualitative studies suggest that local places that are convenient to visit and comfortable to stay in for older adults are likely to enhance their social interaction and network. However, more specific evidence is needed to inform the planning and design of third places. The review discusses future research topics that address the gaps identified in the current literature.

Tackling Loneliness and Isolation in Older Adults With Virtual Reality: How do We Move Forward?

“…For example, Sugiyama et al describe the importance of local community hubs as a safe space for meeting and interacting with new people, to develop one’s social network. Two key factors they identify are convenience and comfortability, both in visiting such spaces and with respect to time spent therein ( Sugiyama et al, 2022 ). In describing the results from their review and analysis of the literature over the past 25 years, Sugiyama et al (2022) .…”

“…Two key factors they identify are convenience and comfortability, both in visiting such spaces and with respect to time spent therein ( Sugiyama et al, 2022 ). In describing the results from their review and analysis of the literature over the past 25 years, Sugiyama et al (2022) . make several recommendations on how such spaces should look like; for example, lush greenery and visually arresting natural sights, in addition to facilitating opportunities for social interaction in the form of transition spaces for example, a bench in an urban park where one might strike up a conversation with another.…”

Neighborhood resources and risk of cognitive decline among a community-dwelling long-term care population in the U.S.

“…A previous natural experiment study in Japan also reported a lower cognitive decline risk among older adults relocated to neighborhoods with high community-level informal socializing and social participation resources [ 37 ]. Different types of neighborhood resources may have offered cognitive benefits to older adults who are cognitively intact, in part through pathways such as a high density of restaurants offering seniors a space for informal gathering; recreational facilities directly facilitating physical and social activities; and social service establishments increasing opportunities for social interaction [ 19 ] or engagement [ 38 ].…”

Global rural health disparities in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: State of the science

“…As such, they may lead to potentially null findings and limit our understanding of the pathways by which greenspace contributes to health in urban and rural contexts. A scoping review of 32 articles investigating the role of green space indeed found that the availability of local businesses, community‐use structures, and open spaces were related to the degree of social interactions 157 . Despite these few preliminary studies, the neighborhood and environmental living, working, and learning conditions in rural locales have been understudied to date in relation to ADRD, particularly in regions other than Europe, Japan, and China.…”