Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Method
2.1. Selection of Study Population
2.2. Development of the Instrument
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Council for Economic Planning and Development. 2008–2056 Population Estimation in Taiwan; Council for Economic Planning and Development: Taipei, Taiwan, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
- World Health Organization. WHO Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. 2013. Available online: https://www.who.int/ageing/age-friendly-environments/GNAFCC-membership-en.pdf?ua=1. (accessed on 19 February 2019).
- Golant, S.M. Age-friendly communities: Are we expecting too much? IRPP Insight 2014, 5, 2–19. [Google Scholar]
- Grantmakers in Aging. Age-Friendly Communities; Grantmakers in Aging: Arlington, VA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, R.; Gunther, S. Health in All Policies: An EU Literature Review 2006–2011 and Interview with Key Stakeholders; Equity Action; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, S.C.; Kuo, H.W. The development and achievement of a healthy cities network in Taiwan: Sharing leadership and partnership building. Glob. Health Promot. 2016, 23 (Suppl. 1), 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langley, G.J.; Moen, R.D.; Nolan, K.M.; Nolan, T.W.; Norman, C.L.; Provost, L.P. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance, 2nd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009; ISBN 9780470192412. [Google Scholar]
- Green, G. Age-Friendly Cities of Europe. J. Urban Health 2013, 90 (Suppl. 1), S116–S128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plouffe, L.; Kalache, A.; Voelcker, I.; Moulaert, T.; Garon, S. (Eds.) Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison; The Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 19–36. [Google Scholar]
- Barusch, A.S. Age-friendly cities: A social work perspective. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2013, 56, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lui, C.; Everingham, J.; Warburton, J.; Cuthill, M.; Bartlett, H. What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Aust. J. Ageing 2009, 28, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, T.J.; Stephan, H.; David, K. Institutions and growth in Korea and Taiwan: The bureaucracy. J. Dev. Stud. 1998, 34, 87–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menec, V.H.; Means, R.; Keating, N.C.; Parkhurst, G.; Eales, J. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Can. J. Aging 2011, 30, 479–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keating, N.; Eales, J.; Phillips, J.E. Age-friendly rural communities: Conceptualizing “best-fit”. Can. J. Aging 2013, 3, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kao, Y.K. Report of the Chinese Association for Human Rights; Chinese Association for Human Rights: Taipei, Taiwan, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Health and Welfare. Report of the Senior Citizen Condition Survey 2013; Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C.: Taipei, Taiwan, 2014.
- Liu, L.C.; Kuo, H.W.; Lin, C.C. Current status and policy planning for promoting age-friendly cities in Taitung County: dialogue between older adults and service providers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C.; Scharf, T. Ageing in urban environments: Developing “age-friendly” cities. Crit. Soc. Policy 2012, 32, 597–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalache, A.P. Políticas Públicas para um país que Envelhece; Berzins, M.V., Borges, M.C., Eds.; Martinari: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2012; pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]
- Fitzgerald, K.G.; Caro, F.G. An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2014, 26, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orpana, H.; Chawla, M.; Gallagher, E.; Escaravage, E. Developing indicators for evaluation of age-friendly communities in Canada: Process and results. Health Promot. Chronic Dis. Prev. Can. 2016, 36, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Menec, V.H.; Nowicki, S. Examining the relationship between communities’ ‘age-friendliness’ and life satisfaction and self-perceived health in rural Manitoba, Canada. Rural Remote Health 2014, 14, 2594. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Julian, D. The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. Eval. Program Plan. 1997, 20, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackisch, J.; Zamaro, G.; Green, G.; Huber, M. Is a healthy city also an age-friendly city? Health Promot. Int. 2015, 30 (Suppl. 1), i108–i117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Criteria | Experts % (Mean ± SD) | Facilitators % (Mean ± SD) | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Plan stage | |||
1. Well-operate task force | 63% (3.53 ± 1.04) | 61% (3.61 ± 0.77) | 2% |
2. Organize education/training program | 32% (3.35 ± 0.84) | 61% (3.57 ± 0.88) | 29%* |
3. Establish commitment for officers | 32% (3.31 ± 1.1) | 61% (3.41 ± 1.03) | 29%* |
4. Conduct need assessment for elderly | 74% (3.89 ± 0.64) | 69% (3.86 ± 0.76) | 5% |
5. Search and integrate local resources | 58% (3.53 ± 0.6) | 65% (3.61 ± 0.71) | 7% |
6. Encouragement and support from mayor or councilor | 58% (3.58 ± 1.09) | 70% (3.83 ± 0.64) | 12% |
7. Supervision by steer committee | 53% (3.47 ± 0.99) | 65% (3.70 ± 0.80) | 13% |
8. Set-up priority of elder problems | 53% (3.32 ± 0.98) | 52% (3.52 ± 0.73) | 1% |
9. Create and monitor indicators | 58% (3.68 ± 1.03) | 60% (3.61 ± 1.01) | 2% |
10. Generate action plan | 42% (3.53 ± 1.04) | 61% (3.65 ± 0.87) | 19% |
Do stage | |||
11. Assess the performance in each unit | 37% (3.17 ± 1.01) | 48% (3.35 ± 0.70) | 11% |
12. Make well-organized evaluation system | 48% (3.50 ± 1.07) | 52% (3.41 ± 0.89) | 4% |
13. Involvement and support from experts and specialist | 53% (3.63 ± 0.93) | 74% (4.00 ± 0.72) | 21% * |
14. Collaborate and cooperate with public and private sectors | 42% (3.22 ± 0.92) | 52% (3.22 ± 0.98) | 10% |
15. Promote and initiate action plan by each unit | 48% (3.37 ± 0.87) | 66% (3.39 ± 0.77) | 18% |
Check and Action stages | |||
16. Exchange inter-city empirical experience | 38% (3.42 ± 1.09) | 43% (3.59 ± 0.94) | 5% |
17. Participate in award competition | 53% (3.63 ± 0.98) | 79% (3.96 ± 0.75) | 26% * |
18. Encourage community participation | 53% (3.53 ± 0.82) | 56% (3.70 ± 0.80) | 3% |
19. Upgrade efficiency in local authorities | 42% (3.26 ± 1.07) | 65% (3.64 ± 0.57) | 23% * |
20. Assess impact and outcomes | 37% (3.32 ± 0.98) | 66% (3.74 ± 0.61) | 29% * |
Items | Experts % (Mean ± SD) | Facilitators % (Mean ± SD) | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
1. Political commitment | |||
A. Get commitment and support from mayor | 58% (3.58 ± 1.09) | 78% (3.96 ± 0.62) | 20% * |
B. Steering committee with inter-sectorial participation | 58% (3.58 ± 0.94) | 40% (3.78 ± 0.72) | 12% |
C. Recognized and supported by public opinion | 21% (3.06 ± 0.80) | 52% (3.43 ± 0.65) | 31% ** |
2. Inter-sectoral collaboration and cooperation | |||
A. Operated and implemented by task force | 68% (3.68 ± 0.92) | 78% (3.91 ± 0.72) | 10% |
B. Setup vision, mission and strategy | 69% (3.84 ± 0.81) | 70% (3.78 ± 0.72) | 1% |
C. Generate regulation and code | 32% (3.33 ± 0.82) | 47% (3.43 ± 0.71) | 15% |
D. Establish network and platform | 47% (3.47 ± 0.94) | 70% (3.83 ± 0.87) | 23% * |
E. Periodical meeting with inter-sectorial unit | 37% (3.21 ± 1.1) | 61% (3.61 ± 0.92) | 24% * |
3. Community participation and stakeholder involvement | |||
A. Make effective mechanisms and awards | 47% (3.37 ± 0.81) | 52% (3.57 ± 0.71) | 5% |
B. Encourage involvement from seniors | 52% (3.42 ± 0.82) | 65% (3.59 ± 0.65) | 13% |
C. Periodical monitoring with need assessments from seniors | 47% (3.47 ± 0.68) | 61% (3.86 ± 0.76) | 14% |
D. Setup priority of action plan | 37% (3.33 ± 1.11) | 43% (3.36 ± 0.71) | 6% |
4. Indicators and action plan | |||
A. Provide training courses for facilitators | 37% (3.53 ± 0.88) | 56% (3.52 ± 0.97) | 19% |
B. Monitor and revise indicators | 32% (3.58 ± 0.99) | 69% (3.82 ± 0.89) | 37% ** |
C. Generate action plan | 37% (3.63 ± 0.98) | 65% (3.82 ± 0.94) | 28% * |
D. Evaluate performance of indicators and action plans | 11% (3.42 ± 1.09) | 48% (3.50 ± 0.84) | 37% ** |
5. Information and marketing | |||
A. Search and integrate various resources | 27% (3.11 ± 0.87) | 39% (3.18 ± 0.83) | 12% |
B. Install age-friendly website | 11% (2.89 ± 1.1) | 43% (3.27 ± 0.81) | 32% ** |
6. Empowerment and training | |||
A. Empower knowledge and skill | 32% (3.37 ± 0.93) | 52% (3.50 ± 0.99) | 20% * |
B. Inter-exchange experience with local and international cities | 21% (3.26 ± 0.85) | 61% (3.55 ± 1.08) | 40% ** |
7. Outcome assessment | |||
A. Collect input and process indicators | 26% (3.42 ± 0.94) | 52% (3.55 ± 0.66) | 26% * |
B. Monitor impact and outcome indicators | 32% (3.16 ± 0.87) | 47% (3.36 ± 0.83) | 15% |
C. Assess health status and quality of life for seniors | 58% (3.53 ± 0.6) | 52% (3.59 ± 0.98) | 6% |
Items | Experts % (Mean ± SD) | Facilitators % (Mean ± SD) | Difference % |
---|---|---|---|
1. Interaction between experts and scholars | 69% (3.84 ± 0.81) | 83% (4.04 ± 0.62) | 14% |
2. Interaction between inter-government units | 37% (3.42 ± 0.88) | 65% (3.65 ± 0.63) | 28% * |
3. Interaction between government and community | 37% (3.26 ± 0.64) | 83% (3.87 ± 0.61) | 46% ** |
4. Interaction between government and NGO/NPO | 32% (3.29 ± 0.57) | 61% (3.64 ± 0.64) | 29% * |
5. Integrate resources between inter-government | 48% (3.28 ± 0.8) | 52% (3.57 ± 0.71) | 4% |
6. Interaction between chief directors from government | 37% (3.17 ± 0.76) | 74% (3.83 ± 0.70) | 37% ** |
7. Interaction with other cities | 21% (2.89 ± 0.81) | 30% (3.23 ± 0.79) | 9% |
8. Interaction between mayor and task force | 42% (3.47 ± 0.88) | 65% (3.78 ± 0.66) | 13% |
9. Interaction between task force and civil organization | 32% (3.11 ± 0.74) | 52% (3.59 ± 0.72) | 20% * |
10. Interaction between civil organization and senior society | 31% (3.21 ± 0.77) | 70% (3.82 ± 0.57) | 39% ** |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lin, L.-J.; Hsu, Y.-C.; Scharlach, A.E.; Kuo, H.-W. Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 608. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040608
Lin L-J, Hsu Y-C, Scharlach AE, Kuo H-W. Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(4):608. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040608
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Li-Ju, Yu-Chang Hsu, Andrew E. Scharlach, and Hsien-Wen Kuo. 2019. "Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 4: 608. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040608