Volume 13, Issue 2 (7-2018)                   sija 2018, 13(2): 236-249 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Taraghi Z, Ilali E S. A Comparison of Older Adults’ and Managers’ Attitudes Towards Age-Friendly City Indexes. sija. 2018; 13 (2) :236-249
URL: http://salmandj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-1318-en.html
1- PhD Department of Geriatric Nursing, Nasibeh Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. , ZTaraghi@mazums.ac.ir
2- Assistant professor Department of Geriatric Nursing, Nasibeh Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Abstract:   (208 Views)
Objectives The process of development of age-friendly environments is one of the key challenges of policy makers. The aim of present study was to compare the elderly people’s and managers’ views towards age-friendly city indexes.
Methods & Materials In this descriptive-analytic study, the attitudes of 379 older adults and 57 managers were compared. Data collection tool was WHO age-friendly cities indicators (2013). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequency percentage) and gamma test using SPSS software V. 21.0.
Results Of the 379 older adults, 64.9% (246 persons) were female. The mean age of the elderly was 68.31±8.25 years (minimum 60 and maximum 89 years). There were significant differences between older adults’ and managers’ views in 13 indicators of 21 indicators. The major indicators were evaluated ‘bad to very bad” from elderly people’s views. The significant difference from the managers’ views includes availability of source of information about health concerns and service needs of older persons (57% of elderly versus 14% of managers)(P=0.001). The policy-making status to guide the planning of new housing construction with regard to elderly person’s needs (57% of elderly versus 31.6% of managers)(P=0.014).
Conclusion Collaboration of organizations’ custodian of elderly with older adults seems necessary in order to obtain the age-friendly city indexes.
Full-Text [PDF 1122 kb]   (80 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (115 Views)  
Type of Study: Research | Subject: gerontology
Received: 2017/04/13 | Accepted: 2018/01/03

1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population aging 2006. New York: UN DESA; 2007.
2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World economic and social survey 2007: Development in an ageing world. NewYork: UN DESA; 2007.
3. United Nations Population Fund. Urbanization: A majority in cities. New York: UNFPA; 2015.
4. World Health Organization. A billion voices: listening and responding to the health needs of slum dwellers and informal settlers in new urban setting. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
5. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World organization prospects: The 2005 revision. New York: UN DESA; 2006.
6. Hu J, Tsai PK, Huang MN, Tsay SF. [Age friendly cities, ideals and practice: The experience of Taichung city (Chinese)]. Hu Li Za Zhi. 2012; 59(6):5-11. [DOI:10.6224/JN.59.6.5] [PMID]
7. Taheri Tanjani p, Azadbakht, M. [Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Activities of Daily Living Scale and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale in elderly (Persian)]. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2016; 25(132):103-12.
8. World Health Organization. Measuring the age friendliness of cities: A guide to using core indicators. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
9. Plouffe L, Kalache A. Towards global age friendly cities: determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of Urban Health. 2010; 87(5):733-739. [DOI:10.1007/s11524-010-9466-0] [DOI:10.1007/s11524-010-9466-0]
10. Keller IM, Kalache A. Promoting healthy aging in cities: The healthy cities project in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 1997; 12(4):287–98. [DOI:10.1023/A:1006539003961] [DOI:10.1023/A:1006539003961]
11. World health Organization. Checklist of essential features of age-friendly cities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
12. WHO Centre for Health Development. 2nd WHO consultation on developing indicators for age-friendly cities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
13. World health Organization. Active ageing: A policy framework. Paper presented at: The Second World Assembly on Ageing. 8-12 April 2002; Madrid, Spain.
14. Zarghani SH, Kharazmi OA, Johari L. [Evaluation of the "Age-Friendly" city indicators in Mashhad by focusing on the social-cultural indices (Persian)]. Human Geography Research. 2016; 47(4):673-88. [DOI:10.22059/JHGR.2015.51385]
15. Kharazmi OA, Zarghani SH., Johari L. [Evaluating spatial – physical indictors in Mashhad to become "age-friendly" city (Persian)]. Joghrafia va Amayesh-e Shahri. 2015; 5(15):177-96.
16. Nemati D, Agha Bakhshi H. [Tehran an age friendly city: first steps towards first capital of aging in the world (Persian)]. Social Research. 2013; 6(18):15-44.
17. Foroughmand Arabi H, Karimi Fard L. [Age friendly city design criteria centers of social interaction with the concepts of space and culture approaches to mental health (Persian)]. Urban Management. 2015; 39:7-34.
18. Wikipedia. List of Iranian cities by population [Internet]. [Updated 2018 April 11] [Internet]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_cities_by_population
19. ISNA. [Population aging is increasing in Mazandaran (Persian)] [Internet]. [Updated 2016 October 1]. Available from: https://www.isna.ir/news
20. Polith D, Beck F. Nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2012.
21. Neal MB, Dela Torre AK. Carder PC. Age-friendly portland: A university- city- community partnership. Journal of Aging & Social Policy. 2014; 26(1-2):88-101. [DOI:10.1080/08959420.2014.854651] [DOI:10.1080/08959420.2014.854651]
22. Garon S, Paris M, Beaulieu M, Veil A, Laliberté A. Collaborative partnership in age-friendly cities: Two case studies from Quebec, Canada.Journal of Aging & Social Policy. 2014; 26(1-2):73-87. [DOI:10.1080/08959420.2014.854583] [DOI:10.1080/08959420.2014.854583]
23. Buffel T, McGarry P, Phillipson C, De Donder L, Dury S, De Witte N, et al. Developing age-friendly cities: Case studies from Brussels and Manchester and implications for policy and practice. ournal of Aging & Social Policy. 2014; 26(1-2):52-72. [DOI:10.1080/08959420.2014.854583] [DOI:10.1080/08959420.2014.854583]
24. Kendig H, Elias A-M, Matwijiw P, Anstey K. Developing age-friendly cities and communities in Australia. Journal of Aging and Health. 2014; 26(8):1390-414. [DOI:10.1177/0898264314532687] [DOI:10.1177/0898264314532687]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2018 All Rights Reserved | Iranian Journal of Ageing

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb