H Orpana1,2, M Chawla3, E Gallagher4, E Escaravage3. 1. Science Integration Division, Social Determinants of Health and Science Integration Directorate, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. Population Health Promotion and Innovation Division, Centre for Health Promotion, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. School of Nursing (Emeritus), Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2006, the World Health Organization launched the Global Age-Friendly Cities Project to support active aging. Canada has a large number of age-friendly initiatives; however, little is known about the effectiveness and outcomes of age-friendly community (AFC) initiatives. In addition, stakeholders report that they lack the capacity and tools to develop and conduct evaluations of their AFC initiatives. In order to address these gaps, the Public Health Agency of Canada developed indicators to support the evaluation of AFC initiatives relevant to a wide range of Canadian communities. These indicators meet the varied needs of communities, but are not designed to evaluate collective impact or enable crosscommunity comparisons. METHODS: An evidence-based, iterative consultation approach was used to develop indicators for AFCs. This involved a literature review and an environmental scan. Two rounds of key expert and stakeholder consultations were conducted to rate potential indicators according to their importance, actionability and feasibility. A final list of indicators and potential measures were developed based on results from these consultations, as well as key policy considerations. RESULTS: Thirty-nine indicators emerged across eight AFC domains plus four indicators related to long-term health and social outcomes. All meet the intended purpose of evaluating AFC initiatives at the community level. A user-friendly guide is available to support and share this work. CONCLUSION: The AFC indicators can help communities evaluate age-friendly initiatives, which is the final step in completing a cycle of the Pan-Canadian AFC milestones. Communities are encouraged to use the evaluation results to improve their AFC initiatives, thereby benefiting a broad range of Canadians.
INTRODUCTION: In 2006, the World Health Organization launched the Global Age-Friendly Cities Project to support active aging. Canada has a large number of age-friendly initiatives; however, little is known about the effectiveness and outcomes of age-friendly community (AFC) initiatives. In addition, stakeholders report that they lack the capacity and tools to develop and conduct evaluations of their AFC initiatives. In order to address these gaps, the Public Health Agency of Canada developed indicators to support the evaluation of AFC initiatives relevant to a wide range of Canadian communities. These indicators meet the varied needs of communities, but are not designed to evaluate collective impact or enable crosscommunity comparisons. METHODS: An evidence-based, iterative consultation approach was used to develop indicators for AFCs. This involved a literature review and an environmental scan. Two rounds of key expert and stakeholder consultations were conducted to rate potential indicators according to their importance, actionability and feasibility. A final list of indicators and potential measures were developed based on results from these consultations, as well as key policy considerations. RESULTS: Thirty-nine indicators emerged across eight AFC domains plus four indicators related to long-term health and social outcomes. All meet the intended purpose of evaluating AFC initiatives at the community level. A user-friendly guide is available to support and share this work. CONCLUSION: The AFC indicators can help communities evaluate age-friendly initiatives, which is the final step in completing a cycle of the Pan-Canadian AFC milestones. Communities are encouraged to use the evaluation results to improve their AFC initiatives, thereby benefiting a broad range of Canadians.
Authors: Georg Bauer; John Kenneth Davies; Jurgen Pelikan; Horst Noack; Ursel Broesskamp; Chloe Hill Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Nancy Ambrose Gallagher; Kimberlee A Gretebeck; Jennifer C Robinson; Elisa R Torres; Susan L Murphy; Kristy K Martyn Journal: J Aging Phys Act Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Elena Del Barrio; Sandra Pinzón; Sara Marsillas; Francisco Garrido Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Joost van Hoof; Jeroen Dikken; Willeke H van Staalduinen; Suzan van der Pas; Rudy F M van den Hoven; Loes M T Hulsebosch-Janssen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Melanie Davern; Rachel Winterton; Kathleen Brasher; Geoff Woolcock Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.390