Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31597278›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

Senior Co-Housing in the Netherlands: Benefits and Drawbacks for Its Residents.

Katja Rusinovic, Marianne van Bochove, Jolien van de Sande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Safety in Housing for Older Adults-A Qualitative Case Study.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Different views on collaboration between older persons, informal caregivers and care professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Personal Characteristics for Successful Senior Cohousing: A Proposed Theoretical Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  18. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Evaluating Senior Daycare Center Locations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katja RusinovicFaculty of Public Management, Law & Safety, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, 2521 EP The Hague, The Netherlands. k.m.rusinovic@hhs.nl.
Marianne van BochoveErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. vanbochove@eshpm.eur.nl.
Jolien van de SandeErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. vandesande@eshpm.eur.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Senior co-housing communities offer an in-between solution for older people who do not want to live in an institutional setting but prefer the company of their age peers. Residents of co-housing communities live in their own apartments but undertake activities together and support one another. This paper adds to the literature by scrutinizing the benefits and drawbacks of senior co-housing, with special focus on the forms and limits of social support and the implications for the experience of loneliness. Qualitative fieldwork was conducted in eight co-housing communities in the Netherlands, consisting of document analysis, interviews, focus groups, and observations. The research shows that co-housing communities offer social contacts, social control, and instrumental and emotional support. Residents set boundaries regarding the frequency and intensity of support. The provided support partly relieves residents' adult children from caregiving duties but does not substitute formal and informal care. Due to their access to contacts and support, few residents experience social loneliness. Co-housing communities can potentially also alleviate emotional loneliness, but currently, this happens to a limited degree. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for enhancing the benefits and reducing the drawbacks of senior co-housing.

Indexed as

HousingIndependent LivingResidential FacilitiesSocial BehaviorSocial SupportAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsFrail ElderlyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPeer Groupaging in placeelderly careinformal carelonelinesssenior co-housing communitiessocial support

Identifiers

PMID31597278
PMCPMC6801586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.