Abstract
Background: There are few data reporting the needs and priorities of older adults in Brazil. This hampers the development and/or implementation of policies aimed at older adults to help them age well. The aim of this study was to understand areas of importance, priorities, enablers and obstacles to healthy ageing as identified by older adults and key stakeholders in both urban and rural environments.
Methods: Two locations were selected, one urban and one rural in the municipality of Santo André, in the metropolitan region of São Paulo (SP). Workshops for older adults (>60 y) and stakeholders were conducted separately in each location. The workshops incorporated an iterative process of discussion, prioritisation and ranking of responses, in roundtable groups and in plenary. Areas of commonality and differences between older adult and stakeholder responses were identified by comparing responses between groups as well as mapping obstacles and enablers to healthy ageing identified by older adults, to the priorities identified by stakeholder groups. The socio-ecologic model was used to categorise responses.
Results: There were few shared responses between stakeholders and older adults and little overlap between the top ranked responses of urban and rural groups. With respect to areas of importance, both stakeholder groups ranked policies for older people within their top five reponses. Both older adult groups ranked keeping physically and mentally active, and nurturing spirituality. There was a marked lack of congruence between older adults’ obstacles and enablers to healthy ageing and stakeholder priorities, in both urban and rural settings. Most responses were located within the Society domain of the socio-ecologic model, although older adults also responded within the Individual/ Relationships domains, particularly in ranking areas of most importance for healthy ageing.
Conclusions: Our results highlight substantial differences between older adults and stakeholders with respect to areas of importance, priorities, enablers and obstacles to healthy ageing, and point to the need for more engagement between those in advocacy and policymaking roles and the older people whose needs they serve.
Methods: Two locations were selected, one urban and one rural in the municipality of Santo André, in the metropolitan region of São Paulo (SP). Workshops for older adults (>60 y) and stakeholders were conducted separately in each location. The workshops incorporated an iterative process of discussion, prioritisation and ranking of responses, in roundtable groups and in plenary. Areas of commonality and differences between older adult and stakeholder responses were identified by comparing responses between groups as well as mapping obstacles and enablers to healthy ageing identified by older adults, to the priorities identified by stakeholder groups. The socio-ecologic model was used to categorise responses.
Results: There were few shared responses between stakeholders and older adults and little overlap between the top ranked responses of urban and rural groups. With respect to areas of importance, both stakeholder groups ranked policies for older people within their top five reponses. Both older adult groups ranked keeping physically and mentally active, and nurturing spirituality. There was a marked lack of congruence between older adults’ obstacles and enablers to healthy ageing and stakeholder priorities, in both urban and rural settings. Most responses were located within the Society domain of the socio-ecologic model, although older adults also responded within the Individual/ Relationships domains, particularly in ranking areas of most importance for healthy ageing.
Conclusions: Our results highlight substantial differences between older adults and stakeholders with respect to areas of importance, priorities, enablers and obstacles to healthy ageing, and point to the need for more engagement between those in advocacy and policymaking roles and the older people whose needs they serve.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | PLOS One |
| Publication status | Accepted/In press - 8 Jan 2024 |