The goal of this commentary is to highlight the ageism that has emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 20 international researchers in the field of ageing have contributed to this document. This commentary discusses how older people are misrepresented and undervalued in the current public discourse surrounding the pandemic. It points to issues in documenting the deaths of older adults, the lack of preparation for such a crisis in long-term care homes, how some ‘protective’ policies can be considered patronising and how the initial perception of the public was that the virus was really an older adult problem. This commentary also calls attention to important intergenerational solidarity that has occurred during this crisis to ensure support and social-inclusion of older adults, even at a distance. Our hope is that with this commentary we can contribute to the discourse on older adults during this pandemic and diminish the ageist attitudes that have circulated.

Background With rural population aging there are growing numbers of people with dementia in rural and remote settings. The role of primary health care (PHC) is critical in rural locations, yet there is a lack of rural-specific PHC models for dementia, and little is known about factors influencing the development, implementation, and sustainability of rural PHC interventions. Using a community-based participatory research approach, researchers collaborated with a rural PHC team to co-design and implement an evidence-based interdisciplinary rural PHC memory clinic in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. This paper reports barriers and facilitators to developing, implementing, and sustaining the intervention. Methods A qualitative longitudinal process evaluation was conducted over two and half years, from pre- to post-implementation. Data collection and analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) which consists of 38 constructs within five domains: innovation characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics, and process. Data were collected via focus groups with the PHC team and stakeholders, smaller team workgroup meetings, and team member interviews. Analysis was conducted using a deductive approach to apply CFIR codes to the data and an inductive analysis to identify barriers and facilitators. Results Across all domains, 14 constructs influenced development and implementation. Three domains (innovation characteristics, inner setting, process) were most important. Facilitators were the relative advantage of the intervention, ability to trial on a small scale, tension for change, leadership engagement, availability of resources, education and support from researchers, increased self-efficacy, and engagement of champions. Barriers included the complexity of multiple intervention components, required practice changes, lack of formal incentive programs, time intensiveness of modifying the EMR during iterative development, lack of EMR access by all team members, lack of co-location of team members, workload and busy clinical schedules, inability to justify a designated dementia care manager role, and turnover of PHC team members. Conclusions The study identified key factors that supported and hindered the development and implementation of a rural-specific strategy for dementia assessment and management in PHC. Despite challenges related to the rural context, the researcher-academic partnership was successful in developing and implementing the intervention.

This scoping review mapped and synthesized published literature related to education and support services for individuals with dementia and their caregivers living rurally. Specifically, we investigated education and support service needs, availability and use of services, barriers to service access and use, and solutions to these barriers. Empirical, English-language articles (2,381) were identified within MEDLINE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, and EMBASE. Articles were screened according to Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-stage scoping review methodology and the recommendations of Levac et al. (2010). Findings suggest limited availability of rural dementia-related support and education services, particularly respite care and day programs. Service use varied across studies, with barriers including low knowledge regarding services, practicality, and resource issues (e.g., transportation, financial), values and beliefs, stigma, and negative perceptions of services. Solutions included tailored and person-centred services, technological service provision, accessibility assistance, inter-organization collaboration, education regarding services, and having a “point of entry” to service use.

BackgroundChildren living on farms experience exceptionally high risks for traumatic injury. There is a large body of epidemiological research documenting this phenomenon, yet few complementary studies that have explored the deep underlying reasons for such trends. Fundamental to this is understanding the decision-making processes of parents surrounding their choice to bring children, or not, into the farm worksite.ObjectivesTo (1) document farm parent views of the risks and benefits of raising children on a family farm, and, (2) understand more deeply why children are brought into the farm worksite.MethodsInterviews were conducted as part of a larger cohort study, The Saskatchewan Farm Injury Cohort. Subsequent to an initial mail-out question focused on parental decision-making, 11 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with rural Saskatchewan farm parents. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, then thematically analyzed using interpretive description methodology.FindingsThis parental decision-making process on farms fundamentally involves weighing the risks vs. benefits of bringing children into the worksite, as if on a balance scale. One side of this scale holds potential risks such as exposure to physical and chemical farm hazards, in the absence of full supervision. The other side holds potential benefits such as meeting family needs for childcare, labour, and family time; building work ethic and pride; and the positive impacts of involvement and responsibility. Decision-making 'tips the scales', in part dependent upon parental perceptions of the risk-benefit trade-off. This 'perceptual lens' is influenced by factors such as: the agricultural way of life, parents' prior knowledge and past experience, characteristics of children, and safety norms.ConclusionsThis novel qualitative study provides deep insight into how Saskatchewan farm parents approach a fundamental decision-making process associated with their parenting. The proposed model provides insight into the etiology of pediatric farm injuries as well as their prevention.

Stigma is a widely recognised public health issue. Many people with neurological disease and their families experience stigmatisation, adding to their burden of illness. Rural populations are typically small, lack anonymity, and often have a higher proportion of older adults with inadequate access to specialised services and resources. Although generally isolated, rural areas can offer benefits such as a sense of familiarity and interconnectedness. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the existing evidence on stigma associated with non‐communicable neurological disease in rural adult populations and identify key findings and gaps in the literature. Our literature search of peer‐reviewed English language articles published from 1 January 1992 to 22 June 2017 was conducted across five databases yielding 8,209 results. After duplicate removal, pairs of reviewers independently screened 6,436 studies according to inclusion criteria developed a priori; 36 articles were identified for inclusion in this review. Study characteristics were described and illustrated by frequency distribution, findings were grouped thematically, and each of the five types of stigma were identified (social, self, health professional, associative, structural). Four factors influencing stigma (knowledge, familiarity, beliefs, and rurality) and four overarching stigma‐related themes (concealment; exclusion; disempowerment, discrimination, and unequal opportunities; and issues related to healthcare systems and providers) emerged. In urban‐rural comparison studies, rural residents were generally less knowledgeable about the neurological disease and more stigmatised. The impact of other factors (i.e., gender, age, and education) on stigma varied and are stated where associations were reported. Three main gaps were identified including: low attention to stigma related to neurological diseases other than epilepsy, limited cross‐cultural comparisons of stigma related to neurological disease, and inclusion of gender as a variable in the analysis of stigma‐related outcomes in only half of the reviewed studies. Further research is recommended.