Therapeutic Science for Rehabilitation (재활치료과학)

Korean Society of Neurological Occupational Therapy (대한신경계작업치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Systematic Review of Assessment Tools for the Housing Environment of the Old Adults Population

노년 인구의 주거환경 평가도구에 관한 체계적 고찰

  • Lim, Young-Myoung (Yonsei New Normal Lifestyle Research Center, Yonsei University)
  • 임영명 (연세대학교 초고령사회 뉴노멀 라이프스타일 연구소)
  • Received : 2024.03.26
  • Accepted : 2024.04.17
  • Published : 2024.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the assessment tools used to assess the housing environment of older adults. Methods : Data were collected from January 2015 to August 31st, 2023, by searching databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and ProQuest. From the 267 articles, nine assessment tools were selected for analysis based on their original instruments. These tools were categorized and systematically organized for analysis based on their frequency of use, assessment purposes, sub-domains, scales, and other relevant criteria. Results : Among the nine tools, HOME FAST and IPAQ-E were the most frequently used (20% each). The objectives of these tools are to assess friendliness, physical barriers, fall prevention, dementia-friendly environments, physical activity, and accessibility. The measurement scope encompassed various factors, such as outdoor spaces, buildings, transportation, housing, and community support. Conclusion : When considering the suitability of housing for the older adults population, providing foundational data for the rational selection of evaluation tools with logical validity is important. This includes factors such as the objectives and measurement scopes of housing environment assessment tools.

목적 : 본 연구 목적은 노년 인구의 주거환경을 평가하기 위해 사용된 평가도구들을 체계적 고찰하고자 하였다. 연구방법 : 자료수집은 2015년 1월부터 2023년 8월 31일까지 해외 데이터베이스 Cochranelibrary, Pubmed, Proquest를 검색하여 주제와 관련된 자료를 추출하였다. 주거환경 평가도구를 사용한 267편에서 원도구를 기준으로 최종 9개의 평가도구를 추출하였다. 분석은 최종 9개 평가도구의 사용 동향 및 빈도, 특성, 평가 범위, 타당도 및 신뢰도 여부 등을 체계적으로 분석하였다. 결과 : 총 9개 평가도구의 사용빈도는 HOME FAST, IPAQ-E가 각 20%로 많이 사용되었다. 원도구의 평가 목적은 친화성(AFCCQ, AFEAT, NEWS), 물리적 장벽(CHIEF, PENBOM), 낙상 예방(HOME FAST), 치매노인의 가정환경(HEAC), 신체활동에 관한 환경(IPAQ-E), 접근성(Walk Score®)으로 평가하고 있었다. 평가 범위는 고령친화도시(Age-Friendly Cities: AFC)의 8개 영역을 기준으로 AFCCQ, AFEAT, CHIEF는 8개 영역 모두를 평가하고 있었으며, 이외 NEWS (Full)는 3개, HOME FAST, IPAQ-E, Walk Score®는 2개 그리고 HEAC, NEWS (Abb), PENBOM는 1개 영역을 포함하고 있었다. 결론 : 노년기에 살던 곳에서 살고자 하는 계속 거주를 실현하기 위해 고려되는 주거환경을 평가할 때, 평가 목적과 범위의 적절성 그리고 논리적 타당성 여부를 판단할 수 있는 기초자료를 제시하고 있음에 의의가 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구성과물은 2023년 정부(교육부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 기초연구사업임(No. RS-2023-00245815).

References

  1. Abdi, S., Spann, A., Borilovic, J., de Witte, L., & Hawley, M. (2019). Understanding the care and support needs of older people: A scoping review and categorisation using the WHO International Classification of Functioning, disability and health framework (ICF). BMC Geriatrics, 19(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1189-9
  2. Alexander, A., Bergman, P., Hagstromer, M., & Sjostrom, M. (2006). IPAQ environmental module: Reliability testing. Journal of Public Health, 14, 76-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-005-0016-2
  3. Baig, F., Rana, I. A., & Talpur, M. A. H. (2019). Determining factors influencing residents' satisfaction regarding urban livability in Pakistan. International Journal of Community Well-being, 2, 91-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00026-w
  4. Brivio, P., Paladini, M. S., Racagni, G., Riva, M. A., Calabrese, F., & Molteni, R. (2019). From healthy aging to frailty: In search of the underlying mechanisms. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 26(20), 3685-3701. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867326666190717152739
  5. Carlson, C., Aytur, S., Gardner, K., & Rogers, S. (2012). Complexity in built environment, health, and destination walking: A neighborhood-scale analysis. Journal of Urban Health, 89, 270-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9652-8
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Healthy places terminology: Aging in place. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm
  7. Chau, H. W., & Jamei, E. (2021). Age-friendly built environment. Encyclopedia, 1(3), 781-791. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia1030060
  8. Choi, Y. J. (2022). Understanding aging in place: Home and community features, perceived age-friendliness of community, and intention toward aging in place. Gerontologist, 62(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab070
  9. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
  10. Dalmer, N. K. (2019). A logic of choice: Problematizing the documentary reality of Canadian aging in place policies. Journal of Aging Studies, 48, 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2019.01.002
  11. Dikken, J., Van den Hoven, R. F., Van Staalduinen, W. H., Hulsebosch-Janssen, L. M., & Van Hoof, J. (2020). How older people experience the age-friendliness of their city: Development of the age-friendly cities and communities questionnaire. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186867
  12. Emlet, C. A., & Moceri, J. T. (2012). The importance of social connectedness in building age-friendly communities. Journal of Aging Research, 2012, 173247. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/173247
  13. Garner, I. W., & Holland, C. A. (2020). Age-friendliness of living environments from the older person's viewpoint: Development of the Age-Friendly Environment Assessment Tool. Age and Ageing, 49(2), 193-198. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afz146
  14. Gu, D., Andreev, K., & Dupre, M. E. (2021). Major trends in population growth around the world. China CDC Weekly, 3(28), 604-613. https://doi.org/10.46234/ccdcw2021.160
  15. Gobbens, R. J. (2019). Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of environmental factors with frailty and disability in older people. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 85, 103901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.103901
  16. Harrell, R., Lynott, J., Guzman, S., & Lampkin, C. (2014). What is livable? Community preferences of older adults. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Public Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aarp.org/ppi/issues/livable-communities/info-2015/what-islivable-AARP-ppi-liv-com.html
  17. Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.) (2023). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
  18. Joo, B. H. (2019). The current status and challenges of housing support policy for the elderly with dementia. Health and Welfare Policy Forum, 276, 59-73. http://doi.org/10.23062/2019.10.6
  19. Ju, Y. M., & Jeong, E. H. (2020). Systematic review of home safety assessments for community-dwelling elderly. Journal of Korean Occupational Therapy, 28(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.14519/kjot.2020.28.3.01
  20. Jung, K. H. (2010). International trends in the establishment of age-friendly cities: Background and significance. Health and Welfare Policy Forum, 168, 102-112.
  21. Kamal, N. S. M., Safuan, S., Shamsuddin, S., & Foroozandeh, P. (2020). Aging of the cells: Insight into cellular senescence and detection Methods. European Journal of Cell Biology, 99(6), 151108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcb.2020.151108
  22. Lehning, A. J., Smith, R. J., & Dunkle, R. E. (2014). Age-friendly environments and self-rated health: An exploration of Detroit elders. Research on Aging, 36(1), 72-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027512469214
  23. Lee, J. J. (1996). Concept and measurement approach of research and development productivity. Science & Technology Policy, 89, 6(8), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.22646/KSTP.1996.6.8.028
  24. Lewis, C., & Buffel, T. (2020). Aging in place and the places of aging: A longitudinal study. Journal of Aging Studies, 54, 100870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2020.100870
  25. Low, G., von Humboldt, S., Kalfoss, M., Wilson, D. M., & Leal, I. (2021). Aging in place. In D. Gu, & M. E. Dupre (Eds.), Encyclopedia of gerontology and population aging (pp. 284-289). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9_72
  26. Mackenzie, L., Byles, J., & Higginbotham, N. (2000). Designing the home falls and accidents screening tool (HOME FAST): Selecting the items. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(6), 260-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260006300604
  27. Peace, S., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2011). 'Option recognition' in later life: Variations in ageing in place. Ageing & Society, 31(5), 734-757. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10001157
  28. Rantakokko, M., Iwarsson, S., Vahaluoto, S., Portegijs, E., Viljanen, A., & Rantanen, T. (2014). Perceived environmental barriers to outdoor mobility and feelings of loneliness among community-dwelling older people. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 69(12), 1562-1568. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu069
  29. Rudnicka, E., Napierala, P., Podfigurna, A., Meczekalski, B., Smolarczyk, R., & Grymowicz, M. (2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing. Maturitas, 139, 6-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.018
  30. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Black, J. B., & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1552-1558. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1552
  31. Seong, T. J. (2002). Validity and reliability. Hakjisa.
  32. Shank, K. S. H., & Cutchin, M. P. (2016). Processes of developing 'community livability' in older age. Journal of Aging Studies, 39, 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2016.11.001
  33. Steels, S. (2015). Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: A review. Cities, 47, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.02.004
  34. Stephens, C., Szabo, A., Allen, J., & Alpass, F. (2019). Livable environments and the quality of life of older people: An ecological perspective. Gerontologist, 59(4), 675-685. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny043
  35. Tiraphat, S., Peltzer, K., Thamma-Aphiphol, K., & Suthisukon, K. (2017). The role of age-friendly environments on quality of life among Thai older adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030282
  36. Torku, A., Chan, A. P. C., & Yung, E. H. K. (2021). Age-friendly cities and communities: A review and future directions. Ageing & Society, 41(10), 2242-2279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000239
  37. Van Der Pas, S., Ramklass, S., O'Leary, B., Anderson, S., Keating, N., & Cassim, B. (2015). Features of home and neighbourhood and the liveability of older South Africans. European Journal of Ageing, 12(3), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-015-0343-2
  38. Van Hoof, J., Marston, H. R., Kazak, J. K., & Buffel, T. (2021). Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities and communities and the built environment. Building and Environment, 199, 107922. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107922
  39. Walk Score. (2013). Walk Score®: Drive less. Live more. Retrieved from http://www.walkscore.com/
  40. Wang, Y., Li, L., Tian, S., Wu, J., & Wang, Z. (2020). Development and psychometrics test of home environment assessment checklist for community-dwelling older adults with dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 77(4), 1389-1396. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-200241
  41. Whiteneck, G. G., Harrison-Felix, C. L., Mellick, D. C., Brooks, C. A., Charlifue, S. B., & Gerhart, K. A. (2004). Quantifying environmental factors: A measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(8), 1324-1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.09.027
  42. World Health Organization. (2007, October 5). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547307
  43. Zheng, Z., Chen, H., & Yang, L. (2019). Transfer of promotion effects on elderly health with age: From physical environment to interpersonal environment and social participation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152794