Irene H Yen1, Johnna Fandel Flood2, Hannah Thompson3, Lynda A Anderson4, Geoff Wong5. 1. University of California, San Francisco, USA irene.yen@ucsf.edu. 2. University of California, Berkeley, USA. 3. University of California, San Francisco, USA. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the environmental features that best support aging in place. METHOD: We conducted a realist synthesis, a theory-driven interpretive method of evidence synthesis, of 120+ articles (published 1991-2011) that attempts to explain how place may influence older adults' decisions about mobility (e.g., physical activity). We developed an initial program theory, reviewed the literature, identified outcomes, analyzed and synthesized patterns, and created a final program theory. RESULTS: Safety was a central mechanism, serving as one of the bridges between environmental components (e.g., connectivity, aesthetics, retail and services) and decisions about mobility. Population density, sidewalk presence, and park proximity did not emerge as key factors. DISCUSSION: Safety considerations are one of the most prominent influences of older adults' decisions about mobility. Street connectivity, pedestrian access and transit, and retail and services were also important. These factors are amenable to change and can help promote mobility for older adults.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the environmental features that best support aging in place. METHOD: We conducted a realist synthesis, a theory-driven interpretive method of evidence synthesis, of 120+ articles (published 1991-2011) that attempts to explain how place may influence older adults' decisions about mobility (e.g., physical activity). We developed an initial program theory, reviewed the literature, identified outcomes, analyzed and synthesized patterns, and created a final program theory. RESULTS: Safety was a central mechanism, serving as one of the bridges between environmental components (e.g., connectivity, aesthetics, retail and services) and decisions about mobility. Population density, sidewalk presence, and park proximity did not emerge as key factors. DISCUSSION: Safety considerations are one of the most prominent influences of older adults' decisions about mobility. Street connectivity, pedestrian access and transit, and retail and services were also important. These factors are amenable to change and can help promote mobility for older adults.
Authors: G C Wanda Wendel-Vos; A Jantine Schuit; Raymond de Niet; Hendriek C Boshuizen; Wim H M Saris; Daan Kromhout Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Mario Schootman; Elena M Andresen; Fredric D Wolinsky; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller; Douglas K Miller Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ana V Diez Roux; Luisa N Borrell; Mary Haan; Sharon A Jackson; Richard Schultz Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Wendy C King; Jennifer S Brach; Steven Belle; Richard Killingsworth; Mark Fenton; Andrea M Kriska Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2003 Sep-Oct
Authors: Patricia F Coogan; Laura F White; Thomas J Adler; Kevin M Hathaway; Julie R Palmer; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Diane K King; Peg Allen; Dina L Jones; David X Marquez; David R Brown; Dori Rosenberg; Sarah Janicek; Laila Allen; Basia Belza Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2015-07-14
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Bing Han; Kelly R Evenson; Catherine Nagel; Thomas L McKenzie; Terry Marsh; Stephanie Williamson; Peter Harnik Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 9.031