The results of this study support the importance of social capital of individuals, as well as social capital within the neighborhood and social cohesion within the neighborhood for well being of older adults. The well being of older adults may also be enhanced through the improvement of quality of neighborhood services.

Due to demographic changes and a widely supported policy of ageing in place, the number of community-dwelling older people will increase immensely. Thus, supportive neighbourhoods enabling older people to age in place successfully are required. Using Q-methodology, we examined older people's perceptions of the comparative importance of neighbourhood characteristics for ageing in place. Based on the World Health Organization's Global Age-friendly Cities guide, we developed 26 statements about physical and social neighbourhood characteristics. Thirty-two older people in Rotterdam, half of whom were frail, rank-ordered these statements. Q-factor analysis revealed three distinct viewpoints each among frail and non-frail older people. Comparisons within and between groups are discussed. Although both frail and non-frail older people strongly desired a neighbourhood enabling them to age in place, they have divergent views on such a neighbourhood. Older people's dependence on the neighbourhood seems to be dynamic, affected by changing social and physical conditions and levels of frailty.

BackgroundDespite the introduction of Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in national immunization programs (NIPs), vaccination rates in most countries remain relatively low. An understanding of the reasons underlying decisions about whether to vaccinate is essential in order to promote wider spread of HPV vaccination. This is particularly important in relation to policies seeking to address shortfalls in current HPV campaigns. The aim of this study was to explore prevailing perspectives concerning HPV vaccination among girls, boys, and parents, and so to identify potential determinants of HPV vaccination decisions in these groups.MethodPerspectives were explored using Q-methodology. Forty-seven girls, 39 boys, and 107 parents in the Netherlands were asked to rank a comprehensive set of 35 statements, assembled based on the health belief model (HBM), according to their agreement with them. By-person factor analysis was used to identify common patterns in these rankings, which were interpreted as perspectives on HPV vaccination. These perspectives were further interpreted and described using data collected with interviews and open-ended questions.ResultsThe analysis revealed four perspectives: “prevention is better than cure,” “fear of unknown side effects,” “lack of information and awareness,” and “my body, my choice.” The first two perspectives and corresponding determinants of HPV vaccination decisions were coherent and distinct; the third and fourth perspectives were more ambiguous and, to some extent, incoherent, involving doubt and lack of awareness and information (perspective 3), and overconfidence (perspective 4).ConclusionsGiven the aim of publically funded vaccination programs to minimize the spread of HPV infection and HPV-related disease and the concerns about current uptake levels, our results indicate that focus should be placed on increasing awareness and knowledge, in particular among those in a modifiable phase.

Public policy increasingly emphasises the importance of informal support networks to meet the needs of the ageing population. Evidence for the types of support neighbours provide to older people and how neighbours collaborate with formal support-givers is currently insufficient. Our study therefore explored (i) types of informal neighbour support and (ii) experiences of neighbours, volunteers and professionals providing support. Interviews with nine Dutch neighbour support-givers, five volunteers and 12 professionals were conducted and subjected to latent content analysis. Findings indicate that commitment occurred naturally among neighbours; along with providing instrumental and emotional support, neighbour support seems to be a matter of carefully 'watching over each other'. Neighbour support-givers, however, are often frail themselves and become overburdened; they furthermore lack support from professionals. Neighbour, volunteer and professional support-givers seem to operate in distinct, non-collaborative spheres. Findings suggest that policy-makers should consider the opportunities and limitations of neighbour and volunteer support. Professionals have an indispensable role in providing back-up and accountable, specialised support. They may be trained to adopt a visible and proactive attitude in neighbourhoods to facilitate, cooperate with and mediate between neighbour and volunteer support-givers.

The preference of older people when it comes to ageing in place may be modified by levels of frailty. The aim of this research is to characterise the relationship between frailty and ageing in place, and to identify differences in neighbourhood characteristics supporting ageing in place missed by frail and non-frail older people. A concurrent nested mixed-methods approach was used. For quantitative evaluation, a sample of  independently living older adults residing in four districts of Rotterdam were asked to complete a questionnaire in  (response rate = %; N = ). In addition,  interviews were conducted with frail and non-frail older people. Results showed that gender, age and especially frailty were related to missed neighbourhood characteristics. People displayed awareness of their increasing frailty and often acknowledged that it increased the need for neighbourhood characteristics enabling them to age in place. We can conclude that dependence on neighbourhoods varies with frailty status. This relationship is dynamic; with frailty, older people become more dependent on their neighbourhood. However, expectations regarding neighbourhood characteristics seem to dissipate with advanced age and increasing frailty.KEY WORDSageing in place, frailty, person-environment fit, neighbourhood attributes, social environment, physical environment.