4.4 Review

Health, quality of life, and wellbeing of older slum dwellers in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review

期刊

GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 1870-1888

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2020.1840610

关键词

Ageing; health; older adults; slums; sub-Saharan Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research on the health and wellbeing of elderly slum dwellers in sub-Saharan Africa focuses on disease prevalence, self-assessed health, health impairment, healthcare access, and sociodemographic disparities. However, there are gaps in the literature, including regional bias, lack of non-slum control samples, and limited research on the health impacts of slum built environments. Recommendations for future research are proposed.
A growing population of older adults resides in sub-Saharan Africa's urban slums. Although environmental conditions in slums are adversarial, there is limited knowledge on the wellbeing of older adults residing in these settings. This review sought to understand the scope, extent, and nature of current research on the health and wellbeing of older slum dwellers in sub-Saharan Africa. We searched 8 bibliographic databases for studies examining the health and wellbeing of older slum dwellers in the region. We also completed a grey literature search. The literature search together yielded 3,388 records, of which we selected 25 for review following a rigorous screening process. The included studies covered a variety of health issues of concern to older slum dwellers: (1) disease and injury prevalence; (2) self-assessed health and quality of life status; (3) physical/mental health impairment and disability; (4) healthcare access and utilisation; and (5) sociodemographic disparities in health and wellbeing. The gaps in this literature include a regional bias in research efforts, near absence of non-slum control samples, and limited research on the health impacts of the built environment of slums. Suggestions for future research are presented.

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

4.4
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