ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Operationalizing age-friendliness in urban China: a multi-case study of gated retirement and open multi-generational communities.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Age-Friendly Communities (AFCs) play a pivotal role in creating supportive social and physical environments, which enable older adults to maintain mobility, independence, healthier living, and successful aging-in-place. Methods: This study employed a multi-case study method to analyze six comunities and two age-friendly community models in China: Gated Retirement Communities (GRCs) and Open Multi-Generational Communities (OMGCs), which have exhibited different effects in practice. An analytical framework incorporating policies, facilities, services, intergenerational relationships, and sustainability has been established to systematically compare these models, with the aim of identifying some more effective age-friendly measures at the community level. Results: The research results revealed that GRCs were prone to spatial inequality, idle waste of resources, violation of service commitment, intergenerational exclusion and unsustainability. On the contrary, OMGCs demonstrated better age-friendliness and stronger vitality. Conclusion: OMGCs are more supportive and age-friendly than GRCs. Some key priorities and effective measures for the development of AFCs have been obtained from these communities, offering valuable insights for Asian nations and developing countries seeking to advance age-friendly initiatives.
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.