IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/eldpol/v2y2022i1p131-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mobilizing a Community to Develop a Comprehensive Master Aging Plan

Author

Listed:
  • Sallie D. Allgood
  • Ryan Lavalley
  • Cassandra Dictus
  • Janice Tyler
  • Cherie Rosemond

Abstract

Approximately 48 million older adults, aged 65+, live in the United States and this number is expected to double in the next 40 years. In response, cities and states are creating policies and programs to support older adults and the overall experience of aging. Yet there is a lack of input from older adults about which policies and programs actually meet their needs. This case example provides information about how one community in North Carolina (NC) engaged older adults in development of their community's Master Aging Plan (MAP). These MAP efforts were guided by the World Health Organization's age‐friendly framework. Community members and key stakeholders participated in an assessment of community assets and needs through surveys (n=860), focus groups (n=13, with 63 participants), and key stakeholder interviews (n=34). A comprehensive list of community needs and assets was created from the assessment and organized using the age‐friendly framework. To endorse or refine findings and establish priorities, community members provided additional input during two community‐wide listening sessions. Armed with findings from the assessment, community members, organizational leaders, and governmental stakeholders came together in workgroups around each domain of the age‐friendly framework to create Orange County's Master Aging Plan. Orange County, NC's experience with collaborative community engagement can serve as a guide for other communities seeking to involve community members in development of their own Master Aging Plan. Policy implications include incentive mechanisms to encourage age‐friendly community planning and broad engagement of both community members and leaders. Aproximadamente 48 millones de adultos mayores, mayores de 65 años, viven en los Estados Unidos y se espera que este número se duplique en los próximos 40 años. En respuesta, las ciudades y los estados están creando políticas y programas para apoyar a los adultos mayores y la experiencia general del envejecimiento. Sin embargo, hay una falta de aportes de los adultos mayores sobre qué políticas y programas realmente satisfacen sus necesidades. Este ejemplo de caso proporciona información sobre cómo una comunidad en Carolina del Norte (NC) involucró a los adultos mayores en el desarrollo del Plan Maestro para el Envejecimiento (MAP) de su comunidad. Estos esfuerzos de MAP fueron guiados por el marco amigable con las personas mayores de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Los miembros de la comunidad y las partes interesadas clave participaron en una evaluación de los bienes y necesidades de la comunidad a través de encuestas (n=860), grupos focales (n=13, con 63 participantes) y entrevistas con partes interesadas clave (n=34). A partir de la evaluación se creó una lista completa de las necesidades y los recursos de la comunidad, que se organizó utilizando el marco adaptado a las personas mayores. Para respaldar o refinar los hallazgos y establecer prioridades, los miembros de la comunidad brindaron información adicional durante dos sesiones de escucha en toda la comunidad. Armados con los hallazgos de la evaluación, los miembros de la comunidad, los líderes organizacionales y las partes interesadas gubernamentales se reunieron en grupos de trabajo en torno a cada dominio del marco amigable con las personas mayores para crear el Plan Maestro para el Envejecimiento del Condado de Orange. La experiencia del Condado de Orange, NC con la participación comunitaria colaborativa puede servir como guía para otras comunidades que buscan involucrar a los miembros de la comunidad en el desarrollo de su propio Plan Maestro para el Envejecimiento. Las implicaciones políticas incluyen mecanismos de incentivos para fomentar la planificación comunitaria adaptada a las personas mayores y una amplia participación tanto de los miembros como de los líderes de la comunidad. 美国约有4800万65岁以上的老年人,这一数字预计将在未来 40年翻一番。作为响应,城市和州正在制定政策和计划,以 支持老年人和整体的老龄化体验。不过,老年人很少表达哪些政策和计划真正满足其需求。本案例描述了北卡罗来纳州 (NC) 的一个社区如何让老年人参与制定社区的重要老龄化计划(MAP)。这些MAP工作以世界卫生组织的老年友好型框架 为指导。社区成员和关键利益攸关方通过参与调查(n=860)、焦点小组(n=13,共63名参与者)和关键利益攸关方访 谈(n=34),评估了社区资产和需求。根据评估创建了一份 全面的社区需求和资产清单,并使用老年友好框架对清单加 以组织。为了认可或完善调查结果并确定优先事项,社区成 员在两次社区聆听会议期间提供了额外的意见。借助评估结 果,社区成员、组织领导和政府利益攸关方建立工作组,围 绕老龄友好框架的每个领域制定橙县重要老龄化计划。北卡 罗来纳州橙县在协作式社区参与方面的经验可为其他社区提 供参考,帮助后者动员社区成员参与制定重要老龄化计划。 政策影响包括用于鼓励老年友好型社区规划的激励机制,以 及社区成员和领导者的广泛参与。

Suggested Citation

  • Sallie D. Allgood & Ryan Lavalley & Cassandra Dictus & Janice Tyler & Cherie Rosemond, 2022. "Mobilizing a Community to Develop a Comprehensive Master Aging Plan," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 131-160, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:1:p:131-160
    DOI: 10.18278/jep.2.1.6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18278/jep.2.1.6
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18278/jep.2.1.6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joost Van Hoof & Jan K. Kazak & Jolanta M. Perek-Białas & Sebastiaan T. M. Peek, 2018. "The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Stephen Neville & Sara Napier & Jeffery Adams & Carol Wham & Debra Jackson, 2016. "An integrative review of the factors related to building age‐friendly rural communities," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2402-2412, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mingyu Sun & Leizi Min & Na Xu & Lei Huang & Xuemei Li, 2021. "The Effect of Exercise Intervention on Reducing the Fall Risk in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Katrien Luijkx & Leonieke van Boekel & Meriam Janssen & Marjolein Verbiest & Annerieke Stoop, 2020. "The Academic Collaborative Center Older Adults: A Description of Co-Creation between Science, Care Practice and Education with the Aim to Contribute to Person-Centered Care for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Joost van Hoof & Helen Bennetts & Alana Hansen & Jan K. Kazak & Veronica Soebarto, 2019. "The Living Environment and Thermal Behaviours of Older South Australians: A Multi-Focus Group Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Kwok-kin Fung & Shirley Suet-lin Hung & Daniel W. L. Lai & Michelle H. Y. Shum & Hong-wang Fung & Langjie He, 2023. "Access to Information and Communication Technology, Digital Skills, and Perceived Well-Being among Older Adults in Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(13), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Maša Filipovič Hrast & Richard Sendi & Boštjan Kerbler, 2023. "Person–Environment Fit in Urban Neighbourhoods in Slovenia: Challenges and Coping Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Frans Sengers & Alexander Peine, 2021. "Innovation Pathways for Age-Friendly Homes in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Kay Shannon & Kasia Bail & Stephen Neville, 2019. "Dementia‐friendly community initiatives: An integrative review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(11-12), pages 2035-2045, June.
    8. Katarzyna Przybyła & Maria Hełdak & Izabela Kurtyka-Marcak, 2019. "Demand for a Housing Offer Addressed to Senior Citizens in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Joost van Hoof & Hannah R. Marston, 2021. "Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Pan, Zhuolin & Liu, Yuqi & Liu, Ye & Huo, Ziwen & Han, Wenchao, 2024. "Age-friendly neighbourhood environment, functional abilities and life satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis of older adults in urban China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    11. Zhe Wang & Mardelle Shepley, 2022. "The Relationship of Neighborhood Walking Behavior to Duration of Aging in Place—A Retrospective Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Jianbo Han & Edwin H. W. Chan & Esther H. K. Yung & Queena K. Qian & Patrick T. I. Lam, 2022. "A Policy Framework for Producing Age-Friendly Communities from the Perspective of Production of Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Anna Szewczenko & Ewa Lach & Natalia Bursiewicz & Iwona Chuchnowska & Sylwia Widzisz-Pronobis & Marta Sanigórska & Klaudia Elsner & Daria Bal & Mateusz Sutor & Jakub Włodarz & Józef Ober, 2023. "Urban Therapy—Urban Health Path as an Innovative Urban Function to Strengthen the Psycho-Physical Condition of the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Ivis García, 2024. "Understanding the Housing Preferences of Older Adults: Insights from a Study on Micro-Housing in Salt Lake City, U.S," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Yingyi Zhang & Ge Chen & Yue He & Xinyue Jiang & Caiying Xue, 2022. "Social Interaction in Public Spaces and Well-Being among Elderly Women: Towards Age-Friendly Urban Environments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, January.
    16. Judy Blakey & Janet Clews, 2020. "Knowing, Being and Co-Constructing an Age-Friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-27, December.
    17. Jingyu Yu & Guixia Ma & Shuxia Wang, 2021. "Do Age-Friendly Rural Communities Affect Quality of Life? A Comparison of Perceptions from Middle-Aged and Older Adults in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-13, July.
    18. Hannah R. Marston & Kelly Niles-Yokum & Paula Alexandra Silva, 2021. "A Commentary on Blue Zones ® : A Critical Review of Age-Friendly Environments in the 21st Century and Beyond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-33, January.
    19. Hannah Ramsden Marston & Linda Shore & P.J. White, 2020. "How does a (Smart) Age-Friendly Ecosystem Look in a Post-Pandemic Society?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-43, November.
    20. Joost van Hoof & Jeroen Dikken & Willeke H. van Staalduinen & Suzan van der Pas & Rudy F. M. van den Hoven & Loes M. T. Hulsebosch-Janssen, 2022. "Towards a Better Understanding of the Sense of Safety and Security of Community-Dwelling Older Adults. The Case of the Age-Friendly City of The Hague," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-20, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:1:p:131-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.