An evaluation tool for Age-Friendly and Dementia Friendly Communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to report how an evaluation tool originally developed for Age-Friendly Cities was pilot-tested in the context of the Dementia Friendly Community (DFC) initiative of the city of Sheffield/UK. It presents finding and outputs on which other communities with dementia friendly agendas can draw. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The original evaluation tool was adapted to a focus on dementia friendliness. Data collection involved scoping conversations, documentary analysis, interviews and group discussions. Following evidence appraisal, Sheffield's approach to dementia friendliness was assessed. A local steering group was central to the study. FINDINGS: The evidence indicates areas of strength in Sheffield's approach to dementia friendliness: involvement of older people; service provision; collaboration; monitoring and evaluation. Scope for improvement was identified around resource allocation, and use of existing guidance on dementia friendliness. Recommendations for policy and practice include enhancing pooling of resources, more detailed recording of resources allocated to dementia-related activity, and collection of evidence on how people affected by dementia have shaped the city's DFC initiative. Key research outputs are an adaptable logic model and an emerging evaluation framework for DFCs. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The study was a short pilot with limited resources. Its findings and outputs must be considered preliminary. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The findings and outputs provide a basis for further research. The study has suggested key components of an evaluation framework for DFCs. It is informing ongoing work to develop such a framework.Funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Public Health Research (SPHR) in the UK as part of the Ageing Well Programme, 2012-2017

Understanding welfare conditionality in the context of a generational habitus: A qualitative study of older citizens in England.

In many welfare states, 'austerity' policies have ignited debates about the fairness and cost-effectiveness of universal welfare benefits, with benefits received by older citizens a particular topic of concern. Empirical studies suggest that conditionality generates problems of access and uptake but, to date, there has been little research on how different conditions of entitlement are understood by older citizens. This study drew on interviews with 29 older citizens from three areas of England to explore how eligibility for and uptake of different kinds of welfare benefits were understood. In interviews, current entitlement was understood in relation to a generational habitus, in which 'our generation' was framed as sharing cohort experiences, and moral orientations to self-reliance, hard work and struggle. Entitlement to some welfare benefits was taken for granted as a reward owed by the state to its citizens for hard-earned lives. State transfers such as pensions, free travel and fuel subsidies were congruent with a nationalised generational habitus, and fostered recognition, self-worth and the sense of a generation as a collective. In contrast, transfers contingent on economic or need-based conditionality were more explicitly framed as 'benefits', and negatively associated with vulnerability and moral contestation. Uptake was therefore often incompatible with their generational habitus. Calls for introducing further conditionality to benefits for older adults are often based on claims that this will increase fairness and equality. Our analysis suggests, however, that introducing conditionality has the potential to promote inequality and foster differentiation and division, within the older population and between generations.This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)’s School for Public Health Research (SPHR).This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2015.06.00

A model of how targeted and universal welfare entitlements impact on material, psycho-social and structural determinants of health in older adults.

A growing body of research attests to the impact of welfare regimes on health and health equity. However, the mechanisms that link different kinds of welfare entitlement to health outcomes are less well understood. This study analysed the accounts of 29 older adults in England to delineate how the form of entitlement to welfare and other resources (specifically, whether this was understood as a universal entitlement or as targeted to those in need) impacts on the determinants of health. Mechanisms directly affecting access to material resources (through deterring uptake of benefits) have been well documented, but those that operate through psychosocial and more structural pathways less so, in part because they are more challenging to identify. Entitlement that was understood collectively, or as arising from financial or other contributions to a social body, had positive impacts on wellbeing beyond material gains, including facilitating access to important health determinants: social contact, recognition and integration. Entitlement understood as targeted in terms of individualised concepts of need or vulnerability deterred access to material resources, but also fostered debate about legitimacy, thus contributing to negative impacts on individual wellbeing and the public health through the erosion of social integration. This has important implications for both policy and evaluation. Calls to target welfare benefits at those in most need emphasise direct material pathways to health impact. We suggest a model for considering policy change and evaluation which also takes into account how psychosocial and structural pathways are affected by the nature of entitlement

A model of how targeted and universal welfare entitlements impact on material, psycho-social and structural determinants of health in older adults.

A growing body of research attests to the impact of welfare regimes on health and health equity. However, the mechanisms that link different kinds of welfare entitlement to health outcomes are less well understood. This study analysed the accounts of 29 older adults in England to delineate how the form of entitlement to welfare and other resources (specifically, whether this was understood as a universal entitlement or as targeted to those in need) impacts on the determinants of health. Mechanisms directly affecting access to material resources (through deterring uptake of benefits) have been well documented, but those that operate through psychosocial and more structural pathways less so, in part because they are more challenging to identify. Entitlement that was understood collectively, or as arising from financial or other contributions to a social body, had positive impacts on wellbeing beyond material gains, including facilitating access to important health determinants: social contact, recognition and integration. Entitlement understood as targeted in terms of individualised concepts of need or vulnerability deterred access to material resources, but also fostered debate about legitimacy, thus contributing to negative impacts on individual wellbeing and the public health through the erosion of social integration. This has important implications for both policy and evaluation. Calls to target welfare benefits at those in most need emphasise direct material pathways to health impact. We suggest a model for considering policy change and evaluation which also takes into account how psychosocial and structural pathways are affected by the nature of entitlement

How is Respect and Social Inclusion Conceptualised by Older Adults in an Aspiring Age-Friendly City? A Photovoice Study in the North-West of England.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Age-Friendly Cities (AFC) Guide classifies key characteristics of an AFC according to eight domains. Whilst much age-friendly practice and research have focused on domains of the physical environment, those related to the social environment have received less attention. Using a Photovoice methodology within a Community-Based Participatory Research approach, our study draws on photographs, interviews and focus groups among 26 older Liverpool residents (60+ years) to explore how the city promotes respect and social inclusion (a core WHO AFC domain). Being involved in this photovoice study allowed older adults across four contrasting neighbourhoods to communicate their perspectives directly to Liverpool's policymakers, service providers and third sector organisations. This paper provides novel insights into how: (i) respect and social inclusion are shaped by aspects of both physical and social environment, and (ii) the accessibility, affordability and sociability of physical spaces and wider social processes (e.g., neighbourhood fragmentation) contributed to or hindered participants' health, wellbeing, intergenerational relationships and feelings of inclusion and connection. Our findings suggest that respect and social inclusion are relevant across all eight domains of the WHO AFC Guide. It is core to an AFC and should be reflected in both city-based policies and evaluations.NIHR SPH

The place for dementia-friendly communities in England and its relationship with epidemiological need.

OBJECTIVES: The dementia-friendly community (DFC) initiative was set up to enable people living with dementia to remain active, engaged, and valued members of society. Dementia prevalence varies nationally and is strongly associated with the age and sex distribution of the population and level of social deprivation. As part of a wider project to evaluate DFCs, we examined whether there is a relationship between provision of DFCs and epidemiological need. METHODS: Dementia-friendly communities were identified through the formal recognition process of DFC status by the Alzheimer's Society and mapped against areas defined by English Clinical Commissioning Groups. We tested whether provision of a DFC was associated with: (1) dementia prevalence, (2) number of known cases, and (3) known plus estimated number of unknown cases. RESULTS: Of the 209 English Clinical Commissioning Group areas, 115 had at least one DFC. The presence of a DFC was significantly associated with number of known dementia cases (mean difference = 577; 95% CI, 249 to 905; P = 0.001) and unknown dementia cases (mean difference = 881; 95% CI, 349 to 1413; P = 0.001) but not prevalence (mean difference = 0.03; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.16; P = 0.61). This remains true when controlling for potential confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that DFC provision is consistent with epidemiological-based need. Dementia-friendly communities are located in areas where they can have the greatest impact. A retrospective understanding of how DFCs have developed in England can inform how equivalent international initiatives might be designed and implemented.NIHR Policy Research Programme, PR-R15-0116-2100

National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme Project Dementia Friendly Communities: The DEMCOM evaluation (PR-R15-0116- 21003)

Final Report: National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme Project Dementia Friendly Communities: The DEMCOM evaluation (PR-R15-0116- 21003) As the number of people living with dementia is increasing globally, Dementia Friendly Communities (DFCs) offer one way of providing the infrastructure and support that can enable people affected by dementia to live well. There is no universally agreed definition of a DFC, and DFCs need not be geographical entities. This study adopted a broad definition, recognising that becoming a DFC is an ongoing process only fully achieved when living with dementia is normalised into a community’s culture, language, infrastructure and activities. A DFC can involve a wide range of people, organisations and geographical areas. A DFC recognises that a person with dementia is more than their diagnosis and that everyone has a role in supporting their independence and inclusion. DFCs in England can apply for official recognition by Alzheimer’s Society as working towards dementia friendly status. A growing number of national and international frameworks and guidance is available to communities seeking to become dementia friendly. Evaluations of DFCs are largely descriptive. While work exists on identifying core outcomes of DFC initiatives, there are very few studies that have tested DFC effectiveness or compared current practice with known need. Evidence on cost effectiveness, cost benefit, social value and social return on investment (SRoI) of DFCs is also missing. This study addresses key gaps in the evidence

Identifying inequitable healthcare in older people: systematic review of current research practice

$\textbf{Background:}$ There is growing consensus on the importance of identifying age-related inequities in the receipt of public health and healthcare interventions, but concerns regarding conceptual and methodological rigour in this area of research. Establishing age inequity in receipt requires evidence of a difference that is not an artefact of poor measurement of need or receipt; is not warranted on the grounds of patient preference or clinical safety; and is judged to be unfair. $\textbf{Method:}$ A systematic, thematic literature review was undertaken with the objective of characterising recent research approaches. Studies were eligible if the population was in a country within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and analyses included an explicit focus on age-related patterns of healthcare receipt including those 60 years or older. A structured extraction template was applied. Extracted material was synthesised in thematic memos. A set of categorical codes were then defined and applied to produce summary counts across key dimensions. This process was iterative to allow reconciliation of discrepancies and ensure reliability. $\textbf{Results:}$ Forty nine studies met the eligibility criteria. A wide variety of concepts, terms and methodologies were used across these studies. Thirty five studies employed multivariable techniques to produce adjusted receipt-need ratios, though few clearly articulated their rationale, indicating the need for great conceptual clarity. Eighteen studies made reference to patient preference as a relevant consideration, but just one incorporated any kind of adjustment for this factor. Twenty five studies discussed effectiveness among older adults, with fourteen raising the possibility of differential effectiveness, and one differential cost-effectiveness, by age. Just three studies made explicit reference to the ethical nature of healthcare resource allocation by age. While many authors presented suitably cautious conclusions, some appeared to over-stretch their findings concluding that observed differences were ‘inequitable’. Limitations include possible biases in the retrieved material due to inconsistent database indexing and a focus on OECD country populations and studies with English titles. $\textbf{Conclusions:}$ Caution is needed among clinicians and other evidence-users in accepting claims of healthcare ‘ageism’ in some published papers. Principles for improved research practice are proposed.This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research’s School for Public Health Research