Mitigating the Challenges and Capitalizing on Opportunities: A Qualitative Investigation of the Public Library’s Response to an Aging Population

Abstract

Public libraries are community hubs that can both create opportunities and address challenges often associated with later life and population aging. Using a thematic analysis of 18 in-depth interviews with public librarians, this study investigates common practices and challenges experienced while developing programs for older adults. This analysis is augmented by an environmental scan of older-adult programming offered in member libraries of the Canadian Urban Library Council (CULC). Results indicate that public librarians leverage community partnerships and staff training to develop programs that foster digital, financial, language, and health literacy and create opportunities for both intergenerational and peer social connection. At the same time, they face challenges related to limited space, budgets, and staff capacity, difficulty meeting the extensive and often conflicting interests of various groups within the library, and marketing programming to older adults. Findings indicate that public libraries may be key players in mitigating challenges often associated with having an aging population, and indeed highlight the many benefits of valuing and providing services to this population.

Community-informed, integrated, and coordinated care through a community-level model: A narrative synthesis on community hubs

“…There were 170 duplicate records that were removed; after title, abstract, and full-text screening, 152 records were excluded, and 18 records were eligible for inclusion (n = 18) (Figure 1). These records were published between 2012 and 2020, and the records reflected community-level models of care in the following countries: United Kingdom (n = 7, 38.8%), 2,16,[25][26][27][28][29] United States (n = 4, 22.2%), 4,5,30,31 South Africa (n = 3, 16.6%), [32][33][34] Canada (n = 2, 11.1%), 35,36 Australia (n = 1, 5.5%), 37 and Peru (n = 1, 5.5%) 38 (Table 1). Through our quality appraisal, we found 4 studies that were low quality (n = 4, 22.2%), 25,26,31,37 5 studies that were moderate quality (n = 5, 27.7%), 2,4,30,33,35 and 9 studies that were high quality (n = 9, 50%).…”

“…Through our quality appraisal, we found 4 studies that were low quality (n = 4, 22.2%), 25,26,31,37 5 studies that were moderate quality (n = 5, 27.7%), 2,4,30,33,35 and 9 studies that were high quality (n = 9, 50%). 5,16,[27][28][29]32,34,36,38 Community hubs were primarily found in the context of community-based centres or clinics (n = 9, 50%); 2,25,26,28,29,[31][32][33][34] however, schools (n = 3, 16.6%), 30,35,38 hospitals (n = 2, 11.1%), 16,27 libraries (n = 2, 11.1%), 4,36 early childhood education centres (n = 1, 5.5%), 37 and corner stores (n = 1, 5.5%) 5 were locations that also housed community hubs. Community hubs were centrally located and easily accessible, and members of the community could often connect with others and access services and supports relevant to their health needs and goals.…”

“…Through our quality appraisal, we found 4 studies that were low quality (n = 4, 22.2%), 25,26,31,37 5 studies that were moderate quality (n = 5, 27.7%), 2,4,30,33,35 and 9 studies that were high quality (n = 9, 50%). 5,16,27-29,32,34,36,38

Figure 1.Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram.

…”