ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing age-friendly urban environments in Indonesia: Validation of the Indonesian age-friendly cities and communities questionnaire (AFCCQ) and differences across urban city categories.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe global aging population is growing rapidly, especially in Southeast Asia and Indonesia. This demographic shift poses significant challenges for urban planning and public health, as older adults face barriers to accessing essential services and engaging in their communities. This study assesses the age-friendliness of urban environments in Indonesia by evaluating the psychometric properties of an Indonesian-language version of the Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire (AFCCQ) and comparing perceived age-friendliness across urban categories.
methodsA cross-sectional survey using the Indonesian version of the AFCCQ was conducted between 7 January and 3 February 2025. The AFCCQ covers nine domains: housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication and information, community support and health services, outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, and financial status. Validity was assessed using item-total Spearman correlations and exploratory factor analysis; reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α. Differences in domain scores across five urban categories were examined using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni adjustment across the nine domain-level tests (α = 0.05/9 = 0.0056).
resultsThe study involved 505 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥60 years, with a mean age of 69.4 years; 81.6% were female. The average AFCCQ score was 14.96 ± 10.46. Overall Cronbach's α was 0.90. The KMO value was 0.83 and Bartlett's test was significant (χ²(253) = 13,374.41, p < 0.001); the first unrotated component accounted for 35.92% of the variance, although 7 components had eigenvalues greater than 1. Nominally significant differences across city categories were observed in housing, social participation, and transportation (p < 0.05); none remained significant after Bonferroni adjustment for nine domain-level comparisons. These comparisons are reported as exploratory.
conclusionThe study indicates that the Indonesian AFCCQ has acceptable internal consistency. Item-level convergence was weak for the two respect and social inclusion items, and the exploratory factor analysis did not reproduce the nine-domain structure. Exploratory differences across urban categories suggest that perceived age-friendliness may vary by city size, particularly for housing, social participation, and transportation, and provide a basis for further investigation in representative samples. Confirmatory factor analysis and formal test-retest assessment in an independent Indonesian sample remain necessary.
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.