Dataset Information

Senior Housing as a Living Environment That Supports Well-Being in Old Age.

ABSTRACT: Background: In different parts of the world new models of senior housing have rapidly appeared, which indicates that existing housing and care models are not fulfilling the hopes and needs of current and new generations of older people. Material and Methods: This qualitative study focuses on one type of communal senior housing complex located in a mid-sized town in Central Finland. The complex was designed to have accessible low-maintenance apartments and common spaces, and to be near easily accessible green spaces, amenities, services, and public transport. The complex has a part-time community coordinator. The minimum age limit is set at 55 years. The data consists of 36 qualitative interviews with residents (21 women, 15 men) aged 66-93, conducted between November 2018 and February 2019. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data analysis focused on how different aspects of the manmade, natural, and social environment were portrayed in residents' descriptions of day-to-day life. Theoretical framework adopted for the study draws from the ideas of environmental and geographic gerontology. The data was analyzed using positioning analysis which is one form of discourse analysis. Results: The senior housing in this study fulfilled its promise of providing accessible a physical and social environment which encourages and enables residents to be physically active and independent, yet which also provides social activities and feeling safe. In this respect, the senior housing complex offered an environment which supports well-being and healthy aging. However, the residents' interpretations of what the senior housing complex represented varied. For some of the residents it was first and foremost a social place, which provided opportunities for social contacts and social activities. For some of the residents the most important were maintenance-free apartments and outdoor areas. The question remains as to how social practices, in the form of government policies and market systems can support the development of different kinds of senior housing which are affordable and accessible for all.

SUBMITTER: Jolanki OH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7890193 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Senior Housing as a Living Environment That Supports Well-Being in Old Age.

Jolanki Outi Hannele OH

Frontiers in public health 20210204

<b>Background:</b> In different parts of the world new models of senior housing have rapidly appeared, which indicates that existing housing and care models are not fulfilling the hopes and needs of current and new generations of older people. <b>Material and Methods:</b> This qualitative study focuses on one type of communal senior housing complex located in a mid-sized town in Central Finland. The complex was designed to have accessible low-maintenance apartments and common spaces, and to be n ...[more]

PMID: 33614564

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness and a serious threat to public health and well-being.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model improves safety, housing stability, and mental health over 2 years.Design, setting, and participantsThis longitudinal comparative effectiveness study interviewed IPV survivors and reviewed their agency records. All unstably housed or homeless IPV survivors entering domestic violence (DV) services were eligible to participate in the study, ensuring capture of typical variability in service delivery (eg, some survivors would enter services when agencies had the capacity to provide DVHF and others would receive services as usual [SAU]). Clients from 5 DV agencies (3 rural and 2 urban) referred by agency staff in a Pacific Northwest state of the United States were assessed between July 17, 2017, and July 16, 2021. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish at entry into services (baseline) and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits. The DVHF model was compared with SAU. The baseline sample included 406 survivors (92.7% of 438 eligible). Of the 375 participants retained at the 6-month follow-up (92.4% retention), 344 had received services and had complete data across all outcomes. Three hundred sixty-three participants (89.4%) were retained at the 24-month follow-up.InterventionThe DVHF model has 2 components: housing-inclusive advocacy and flexible funding.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes included housing stability, safety, and mental health, which were assessed using standardized measures.ResultsOf the 344 participants (mean [SD] age, 34.6 [9.0] years) included in the analyses, 219 (63.7%) received DVHF and 125 (36.3%) received SAU. Most participants identified as female (334 [97.1%]) and heterosexual (299 [86.9%]). Two hundred twenty-one participants (64.2%) were from a racial and ethnic minority group. Longitudinal linear mixed-effects models showed that receiving SAU was associated with greater housing instability (mean difference, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.42-1.14]), DV exposure (mean difference, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.05-0.26]), depression (mean difference, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.27-2.43]), anxiety (mean difference, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.11-2.19]), and posttraumatic stress disorder (mean difference, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.04-1.04]) compared with receiving the DVHF model.Conclusions and relevanceEvidence in this comparative effectiveness study suggests that the DVHF model was more effective than SAU in improving the housing stability, safety, and mental health of survivors of IPV. The DVHF's amelioration of all of these interconnected public health issues-relatively quickly and with long-term continuance-will be of substantial interest to DV agencies and others working to support unstably housed IPV survivors.

Project description:In laboratory animal facilities, it is a common code of practice to house female mice in groups. However, some experimental conditions require to house them individually, even though social isolation may impair their well-being. Therefore, we introduced a separated pair housing system and investigated whether it can refine single housing of adult female C57BL/6JRj mice. Individually ventilated cages (IVC) were divided by perforated transparent walls to separate two mice within a cage. The cage divider allowed visual, acoustic, and olfactory contact between the mice but prevented interindividual body-contact or food sharing. Short- and long-term effects of the separated pair housing system on the well-being of the mice were compared with single and group housing using a range of behavioral and physiological parameters: Nest building behavior was assessed based on the complexity of nests, the burrowing performance was measured by the amount of food pellets removed from a bottle, and trait anxiety-related behavior was tested in the free exploratory paradigm. For the evaluation of the ease of handling, interaction with the experimenter's hand was monitored. Social interaction with unknown conspecifics and locomotor activity were investigated in a test arena. Moreover, body weight and stress hormone (metabolites) were measured in feces and hair. After the mice spent a day under the respective housing conditions, concentrations of fecal corticosterone metabolites were higher in separated pair-housed mice, and they built nests of a higher complexity when compared to single-housed mice. The latter effect was still observable eight weeks later. In week 8, separated pair-housed mice showed less locomotor activity in the social interaction arena compared to mice from the other housing systems, i.e., single and group housing. Regardless of the time of testing, pair housing improved the burrowing performance. Separated pair-housed mice were more difficult to catch than group-housed mice. Hair corticosterone, progesterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone concentrations changed with increasing age independently of the housing system. There were no effects of the housing systems on trait anxiety-related behavior in the free exploratory paradigm, voluntary interaction with the experimenter's hand, and body weight. Overall, the transfer to the separated pair housing system caused short-term stress responses in female C57BL/6JRj mice. Long-term effects of separated pair housing were ambiguous. On one hand, separated pair housing increased nesting and burrowing behavior and may therefore be beneficial compared to single housing. But on the other hand, locomotor activity decreased. The study underlined that the effects of the housing conditions on physiological and behavioral parameters should be considered when analyzing and reporting animal experiments.

Dataset Information

Senior Housing as a Living Environment That Supports Well-Being in Old Age.

Publications

Senior Housing as a Living Environment That Supports Well-Being in Old Age.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets