4.7 Article

Changes in older adults? perceptions of age-friendliness in Hong Kong: A three-year mixed-methods study

期刊

CITIES
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103748

关键词

Age-friendly city; Inequality; Older adult; Aging; Evaluation; East Asia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Constructing an Age-friendly City (AFC) has become a major public policy imperative in response to global population aging and urbanization. Our study found significant improvements in perceived age-friendliness in all eight AFC domains in a citywide AFC initiative. Particularly, low-income older adults saw the greatest improvements in age-friendliness.
Constructing an Age-friendly City (AFC) has become a major public policy imperative in response to global population aging and urbanization. Yet there is a dearth of empirical evidence on how AFC initiatives can improve perceived age-friendliness among community-dwelling older adults, and on how such initiatives may differently affect older adults with different socioeconomic statuses. Drawing on a three-year citywide AFC initiative in Hong Kong, we conducted a trend study to evaluate changes in perceived age-friendliness in eight AFC domains with 2575 and 2697 community-dwelling older adults in 2015 and 2018 respectively, in addition to 36 focus groups involving 206 older adults. Participants were asked to share their views on changes in age friendliness in their cities. Survey data were analyzed using linear regression while focus group data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Significant improvements were found in perceived age-friendliness in all eight AFC domains. Low-income older adults saw the greatest improvements in age-friendliness. Thematic analysis revealed that despite improvements, shortcomings persist in domains of housing, civic engagement, and employment. Nevertheless, our findings demonstrate that concerted efforts can improve a city's overall age friendliness, and that such improvements appear most evident among low-income older adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据