Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39422571›Full record

ArticleThe Gerontologist2024

Assessing Age-Friendly Community Initiatives: Developing a Novel Survey Tool for Assessment and Evaluation.

Sarah Webster, Madison Robertson, Christian Keresztes, John Puxty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Gerontologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Sarah WebsterCentre for Studies in Aging and Health, Providence Care Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Madison RobertsonCentre for Studies in Aging and Health, Providence Care Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5984-8098
Christian KeresztesSchool of Community Services, St. Lawrence College, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
John PuxtyCentre for Studies in Aging and Health, Providence Care Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesAge-friendly community initiatives (AFCIs) have gained recognition as essential responses to the needs of aging populations. Despite their growing significance, there is a notable lack of effective measurement tools to assess the planning, implementation, and sustainability of AFCIs. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a survey tool for evaluating AFCIs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsA sequential exploratory mixed-method design was used in 2 phases. First, we identified key themes from interviews with AFCI leads to generate AFCI survey items and regional workshops. Then, we conducted a pilot of the survey and assessed its measurement properties.

resultsThematic analysis of interviews with 68 key informants from 58 AFCIs revealed 4 main themes: AFCI priorities, enablers, challenges, and benefits. These themes, combined with feedback from AFCI stakeholders at the regional workshops and an AFCI conference, informed the development and refinement of a reliable and valid AFCI survey in 2019, supported by a high Cronbach's alpha value (α = 0.881). Steps were identified to maintain and sustain the AFCI survey over time. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The survey accommodates AFCIs' diverse demographics, governance structures, and priorities with a standardized and flexible approach for effective measurement. This research contributes to the academic understanding of AFCIs and aids community leaders and policy-makers in planning, implementing, and evaluating AFCIs.

Indexed as

Program EvaluationAgedAgingFemaleHumansIndependent LivingMaleResidence CharacteristicsSurveys and QuestionnairesActive agingAge-friendly environmentsEvaluationMeasurementSurvey design

Identifiers

PMID39422571
PMCPMC11586661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.