ArticleBMJ open2025
Social inclusion programming for older adults living in age-friendly cities: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging loneliness and mobility: an integrated community-based rehabilitation model for older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Extraordinary abilities, creativity, and love, in the path of dementia: a perspective article on the Walking the Talk for Dementia 2025 initiative.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Article
- Physical activity in age-friendly cities and communities: a scoping review with recommendations to support policy and practice.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCreating age-friendly cities (AFCs) is essential for supporting older adults' well-being. The WHO's 2007 guide outlines key features of AFCs, including social inclusion. Despite increasing numbers of AFC programmes, diverse experiences of ageing are often overlooked. This scoping review explores innovative programmes implemented by AFCs to enhance social inclusion for older adults.
designA scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted between December 2023 and January 2024 across relevant databases (Ovid Medline, OVID Embase, OVID PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus) and the grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Selection criteria included English language publications describing evaluated age-friendly, social inclusion programmes for older adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction followed Gonyea and Hudson's (2015) framework assessing programmes on population, environment and/or sector inclusion levels. Inductive analysis identified and evaluated aspects of social inclusion.
resultsWe identified 20 peer-reviewed publications and 18 grey literature sources. Most programmes (peer review, n=19, 95.0%; grey, n=18, 100.0%) addressed population inclusion, incorporated environment (peer review, n=10, 50.0%; grey, n=15, 83.3%) and/or sector inclusion (peer review, n=7, 35.0%; grey, n=15, 83.3%). Key outcomes included an improved sense of belonging, increased engagement with community resources and activities, enhanced digital literacy and connectivity, and a reduction in feelings of loneliness and isolation. A notable gap was the absence of studies focused on Indigenous populations.
conclusionWe highlight that programmes addressing population, environment and sectoral inclusion may improve the well-being of older adults in urban settings. Our findings will inform AFC practices and policies by deepening our understanding of how social inclusion can be improved for older adults, including those from under-represented groups, ensuring an equitable approach to enhancing quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.