Practice that Transforms Intergenerational Programs: A Model of Theory- and Evidence Informed Principles

Jarrott, Shannon E.; Stremmel, Andrew J.; Juris, Jill

doi:10.1080/15350770.2019.1579154

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The analytic strategy, completed in duplicate via focused content analysis of practices, increases validity and reliability of identified practices. Study results reflect tenets of contact theory (Allport, 1954;Pettigrew, 1998;Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) and Erikson's psychosocial stages of development (1982), as well as previously studied intergenerational practices (Jarrott et al, 2019). Turning to weaknesses, our scoping review protocol did not include a search of the gray literature, a common scoping method (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005), though we did search references cited in discussion sections of selected articles.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Intergenerational Programming: A Scoping Review

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based intergenerational practices are sought by practitioners interested in the potential value of intergenerational programs. These are often difficult to identify as intergenerational program research frequently consists of small samples and pre-post analyses of attitudinal data with little attention to implementation characteristics. We systematically identified evidence-based intergenerational practices linked to program outcomes from peer-reviewed journal articles ( n = 21) published between 2000 and 2019. Scoping reviews facilitate synthesis of available evidence-based practices and identification of gaps in the literature. Fifteen evidence-based intergenerational practices were identified; each was coded in at least five articles. The practices informed program content (e.g., using technology), program considerations (e.g., environmental modifications), facilitator and participant preparation (e.g., training), and quality interactions among participants (e.g., incorporating mechanisms of friendship). While these identified practices reflect extant theory and research, rigorous implementation research is needed to advance evidence-based intergenerational practice as policymakers and practitioners advocate for intergenerational program growth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Intergenerational Programming: A Scoping Review

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Processes that were previously reported to improve intergenerational activities include consistent scheduling and explicit encouragement of intergenerational interaction (Epstein and Boisvert, 2006;Jarrott et al, 2019;Lou and Dai, 2017). Another process that is frequently noted is ongoing training of IGP organizers (DeVore et al, 2016;Gigliotti et al, 2005), and preparatory and continuing guidance for participants (Cohen-Mansfield and Jensen, 2017;Jarrott et al, 2019;McAlister et al, 2019). In addition, ongoing program evaluation has been mentioned as an important process (DeVore et al, 2016;Epstein and Boisvert, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processes and structures in intergenerational programs: a comparison across different types of programs

Cohen‐Mansfield

Muff

2021

Int. Psychogeriatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Given the widely acknowledged benefits of intergenerational programs (IGPs), we compared processes and structures across different IGP types and explored potential areas for improvement. Design: Thirteen IGPs were classified into three types: arts, learning, and assistance programs. Data were collected through direct structured interviews and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Setting: Participants were recruited from community-based IGPs in the greater Tel Aviv area of Israel. Participants: Eighty-four older participants (OPs), 97 younger participants (YPs), and 21 organizers were interviewed. Measurements: Questions included participant demographics as well as closed- and open-ended questions regarding processes based on the Impact of Intergenerational Programs Questionnaire (IIPQ). Analysis: Responses to closed-ended questions were compared among IGP types and age groups using two-way ANOVAs for ordinal data, and chi-squares for nominal data. Responses to open-ended questions by OP, YP, and program organizers about potential areas for improvement were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Processes in need of improvement were preparation and guidance, length of program participation, and monitoring of activities, which differed across IGP types and age groups. These processes were related to broader structural problems such as lack of resources, organizers’ poor employment conditions, and inadequate public services for older persons in Israel. Conclusions: Our study highlights the complex relationships between IGP types, processes, and structures. IGP processes and goals can be hindered by structural variables such as insufficient funding, infrastructure, and public services for older adults.

show abstract

“…The most significant subcomponents regarding a facilitator's skills include being knowledgeable about different generations (e.g., children, [32]. Considerable current research in the field examines the importance of knowledge and behaviors of persons who implement the multigenerational programming [33,34]. As shown in these reports, a facilitator should be present when multigenerational exchanges are implemented.…”

Section: Factors Related To the Implementation Of Multigenerational Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Factors that facilitate multigenerational exchanges in regional locations: a cross‐sectional study in Niigata City, Japan

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the process of community building, it is important to create a place for multigenerational exchanges. To promote multigenerational exchanges in regional locations, it is essential to clarify whether such exchanges are related to government infrastructure, regional characteristics, and social capital, and how these exchanges contribute to community building. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted with representatives from 455 Chiiki no Cha-no-Ma (literal translation “community living room,” and hereafter “Cha-no-Ma”) in Niigata City, Japan. Responses were received from 405 representatives (response rate: 89.0 %), and 401 agreed to participate (4 declined). The survey details included basic information (e.g., date each location was established, frequency of meetings, number of caretakers and participants, qualifications of the representative), activities reflecting local culture, a social capital scale, the effects of the Cha-no-Ma implemented by the representative (12 items), challenges for management (16 items), and the implementation of multigenerational exchanges. Results Most of the age groups that participated in the Cha-no-Ma were elderly, and multigenerational exchanges took place in 125 locations (31.5 %). Items that had a significant connection to the implementation of multigenerational exchanges were “Frequency of meetings” (p < 0.001) and “Activities reflecting local culture” (p = 0.026). Binomial logistic regression analysis indicated that a high frequency of meetings was associated with the implementation of multigenerational exchanges (Odds ratio = 3.839). There was a significantly higher ratio of implementation of multigenerational exchanges when the effects were a “connection with the region” (p = 0.006) and “conversations with different generations” (p = 0.004), and when the challenge was “no support from residents” (p = 0.002). Conclusions Cha-no-Ma participation is low among young people. The following ideas can be considered in order to increase multigenerational exchanges in regional locations. These exchanges may be promoted by increasing the frequency of meetings with qualified personnel and by adding activities that reflect local culture, such as festivals and making local foods. This community-based study clearly indicates that implementing multigenerational exchanges is an important activity for community building because it is related to connection within the community.

show abstract

Practice that Transforms Intergenerational Programs: A Model of Theory- and Evidence Informed Principles

Cited by 27 publications

References 34 publications

Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Intergenerational Programming: A Scoping Review

Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Intergenerational Programming: A Scoping Review

Processes and structures in intergenerational programs: a comparison across different types of programs

Factors that facilitate multigenerational exchanges in regional locations: a cross‐sectional study in Niigata City, Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About