ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Developing an indicator for community-level age-friendly communities: the Japan gerontological evaluation study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Operationalizing age-friendliness in urban China: a multi-case study of gated retirement and open multi-generational communities.Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAge-friendly communities (AFCs) aim to create inclusive societies for older adults. The World Health Organization (WHO) highlights dementia considerations in AFC development; however, few community-level indicators include these elements. This study aimed to develop a community-level AFC indicator incorporating dementia-friendly elements based on WHO guidelines and to test its validity and reliability.
methodsA repeated cross-sectional design used data from the 2016 and 2019 waves of the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES) covering 61 school districts in 16 municipalities (45,162 individuals aged 65 and older in 2016 and 39,313 in 2019). The 2016 and 2019 datasets served as the development and retest samples, respectively. The item selection process involved extracting indicators from the JAGES survey items that aligned with WHO guidelines as well as those based on prior research on dementia-friendly communities (DFCs). Following expert consultations, 23 candidate items were identified. Data were aggregated at the school district level. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the 2016 data to derive the factor structure, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess model fit. The reproducibility of the factor structure was evaluated using EFA on the 2019 retest sample. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed.
resultsThe final 17-item indicator comprised three subscales: Social inclusion and dementia-friendliness (7 items, α = 0.86; e.g., Sense of belonging to the community), Social engagement and communication (5 items, α = 0.78; e.g., Participation in hobby groups), and Age-friendly physical environment (5 items, α = 0.82; e.g., Accessibility of barrier-free streets). The CFA showed an unsatisfactory model fit; however, test-retest reliability was adequate (r = 0.71-0.79; ICC = 0.67-0.78).
conclusionsA valid and reliable 17-item community-level indicator was developed, aligning with the WHO framework and incorporating dementia-friendly elements. This indicator is a valuable tool for monitoring, evaluation, and inter-community comparisons, aiding the development of AFCs and DFCs in aging societies like Japan. Additionally, this indicator can be adapted for other high-income countries with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, healthcare systems, and community structures, providing a useful tool for age- and dementia-friendly initiatives. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.