Photo: Mostphotos
5. The Impact of age-friendly communities
The final session of the conference aimed to address how we can assess the impact of age-friendly initiatives at both the systemic and individual levels. Moderator Yongjie Yon introduced this session by reflecting on the themes raised so far at the conference.
– We have all already seen plenty of great examples in the Nordic and Baltic communities. I think we all share the same question: How do we know if our work on an age-friendly environment is truly effective, measurable, and actually impacts older persons' futures and the systems that support all of us?
– We have all already seen plenty of great examples in the Nordic and Baltic communities. I think we all share the same question: How do we know if our work on an age-friendly environment is truly effective, measurable, and actually impacts older persons' futures and the systems that support all of us?
Erja Rappe, Senior researcher, Age Institute, Finland: Quality indicators of age-friendliness in Finland: Current status and development needs
Finland is one of the fastest-ageing countries globally, with 24% of its population currently aged 65 or older. The oldest age groups are expected to grow significantly in the near future. Many of the country’s oldest residents live in rural areas, which are rapidly losing basic services due to urbanisation. Many older people face loneliness and worry about the sufficiency and accessibility of services aimed at older people.
A recently completed research project on quality indicators of age-friendliness by the Finnish Age Institute shed light on the preparedness of municipalities and well-being services counties for population ageing.
– We examined 14 dimensions of age-friendliness based on the WHO framework. In addition to social and health services, these dimensions included, for example, the accessibility of local services, access to information about essential services, and support for using digital services, Erja Rappe explained.
Results show that municipalities report having many assessment methods to evaluate opportunities for older people to socialise, meet others, and engage in leisure activities. However, very few had methods for evaluating housing solutions for older people, and the functionality and accessibility of public transport.
The well-being service counties had many assessment methods for evaluating social and health care services, as they are the providers of those services. They also have methods for assessing older people's opportunities to influence decisions. In contrast, they have few or very few methods for evaluating the accessibility of nearby nature and green areas.
Results show that municipalities report having many assessment methods to evaluate opportunities for older people to socialise, meet others, and engage in leisure activities. However, very few had methods for evaluating housing solutions for older people, and the functionality and accessibility of public transport.
The well-being service counties had many assessment methods for evaluating social and health care services, as they are the providers of those services. They also have methods for assessing older people's opportunities to influence decisions. In contrast, they have few or very few methods for evaluating the accessibility of nearby nature and green areas.
– One positive finding was that, among the service providers, the term age-friendliness was familiar. However, everyone expressed a desire for more assessment methods for age-friendliness.
The key findings of the Age Institute's research project reveal that assessment practices are generally fragmented and inconsistent. Municipalities and well-being services counties do not have standard methods to evaluate age-friendliness. Methods differ, and without common models, comparable data is absent.
– Our findings reveal significant challenges in the current practices for assessing age-friendliness. The practices are fragmented and lack comparability. Furthermore, the methods are used inconsistently, and their support for decision-making is very weak.
Another important finding is that the indicators do not incorporate the perspective of older people; they more closely represent the viewpoint of the service system rather than that of older individuals.
– These gaps highlight the urgent need for standardised and inclusive assessment methods and frameworks that truly capture the lived experience of older adults and strengthen their voice in decision-making, Erja Rappe stated.
Promoting age-friendliness requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors, but the results show that cross-sector collaboration is weak. The knowledge base on older people is narrow and primarily focused on diseases and service needs.
Based on these findings, the Age Institute suggests establishing a national framework to evaluate age-friendliness. The set of indicators should be expanded to more accurately reflect and support older people's capacities and resources. Additionally, older individuals should participate in developing and assessing age-friendliness initiatives. The national knowledge base should also be supplemented with local data.
– In my view, the WHO framework for age-friendly environments addresses all these development needs we found. So we know how age-friendliness should be assessed, but the challenge lies in making this knowledge widely used in municipalities and well-being services counties. They must develop age-friendliness to cope financially with the growing service needs of an ageing population.
The key findings of the Age Institute's research project reveal that assessment practices are generally fragmented and inconsistent. Municipalities and well-being services counties do not have standard methods to evaluate age-friendliness. Methods differ, and without common models, comparable data is absent.
– Our findings reveal significant challenges in the current practices for assessing age-friendliness. The practices are fragmented and lack comparability. Furthermore, the methods are used inconsistently, and their support for decision-making is very weak.
Another important finding is that the indicators do not incorporate the perspective of older people; they more closely represent the viewpoint of the service system rather than that of older individuals.
– These gaps highlight the urgent need for standardised and inclusive assessment methods and frameworks that truly capture the lived experience of older adults and strengthen their voice in decision-making, Erja Rappe stated.
Promoting age-friendliness requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors, but the results show that cross-sector collaboration is weak. The knowledge base on older people is narrow and primarily focused on diseases and service needs.
Based on these findings, the Age Institute suggests establishing a national framework to evaluate age-friendliness. The set of indicators should be expanded to more accurately reflect and support older people's capacities and resources. Additionally, older individuals should participate in developing and assessing age-friendliness initiatives. The national knowledge base should also be supplemented with local data.
– In my view, the WHO framework for age-friendly environments addresses all these development needs we found. So we know how age-friendliness should be assessed, but the challenge lies in making this knowledge widely used in municipalities and well-being services counties. They must develop age-friendliness to cope financially with the growing service needs of an ageing population.
Natalie Turner, Deputy Director at the Centre for Ageing Better, UK: Understanding Impact: Findings from the UK Network of Age-friendly Communities Impact Report
The UK Network of Age-friendly Communities includes around one hundred cities and towns, with nearly 32 million residents. It spans major cities, small towns, and rural areas at various stages of developing age-friendly initiatives.
In her presentation on understanding the impact of age-friendly initiatives, Natalie Turner reminded the audience that each community is unique, leading to significant variation in goals and measurements across different areas.
Many indicators of change are long-term and difficult to directly link to a single programme. Smaller interventions often lack the specific resources and evaluation skills needed for thorough data collection. Additionally, much of the work focuses on shifting attitudes and ways of working, making them harder to measure. Nevertheless, understanding of the impact is crucial to ensure that efforts are effectively making a difference.
Natalie Turner gave an overview of the impact the UK Network of Age-friendly Communities has on both local systems and older people themselves, drawing on the key findings in the newly published UK Network Impact Report by the Centre for Ageing Better.
– We divided our results into five impacts for systems, and five impacts for older people, but they are of course interconnected, Natalie Turner explained.
By systems, the report refers to all age-friendly partners across different levels of society. A systems change would involve confronting the root causes of issues by transforming structures, customs, and policies. The five impacts for local systems within the report are briefly described as follows.
– We divided our results into five impacts for systems, and five impacts for older people, but they are of course interconnected, Natalie Turner explained.
By systems, the report refers to all age-friendly partners across different levels of society. A systems change would involve confronting the root causes of issues by transforming structures, customs, and policies. The five impacts for local systems within the report are briefly described as follows.
– The baseline surveys that people do at the beginning of their age-friendly initiatives help to prioritise. Where are the older people in your area? How are they doing, and what are their priorities? Resources should be directed towards what needs to change the most.
– A prerequisite for joining our network is demonstrating how you involve older people.
Embedding and enabling a preventative way of working. This focuses on encouraging activities that support health prevention through a life-course approach. Systems-level examples include prioritising community-based health initiatives and expanding domains like age-friendly employment and volunteering.
– The determinants of health are not just about clinical services, but also about how people can contribute and be supported in their communities, Natalie Turner explained.
As mentioned, the UK Network Impact Report also focused on the benefits and impacts on older people themselves. Five key findings in this area are as follows:
Expanding older people's access to and use of local spaces. This focuses on making physical environments more accessible to improve residents’ independence in their own neighbourhoods. Practical initiatives include conducting walking audits to improve town centres and parks, and coordinating community transport.
Bringing an age-friendly lens to existing services can also have a significant impact.
Natalie Turner, Deputy Director at the Centre for Ageing Better, UK
Increasing older people's connections to and inclusion in society. This involves encouraging activities that foster social participation and strengthen intergenerational or cross-cultural connections. Communities may host creative workshops or specific social activities to mark events such as the International Day of Older People.
– This is the essential approach to tackling loneliness. Presenting opportunities for people to participate, engage, and build and maintain social connections. I believe this is the foundation of much age-friendly work, Natalie Turner said.
– This is the essential approach to tackling loneliness. Presenting opportunities for people to participate, engage, and build and maintain social connections. I believe this is the foundation of much age-friendly work, Natalie Turner said.
– All of these impacts are interconnected, and it is important to tell that story to your local decision-makers, Natalie Turner concluded.
