Promoting Participation: Evaluation of a Health Promotion Program for Low Income Seniors

Abstract

This article describes a qualitative evaluation of the Seniors Active Living in Vulnerable Elders (ALIVE) program, a 10-month health promotion program for low income seniors. Program interventions delivered in seniors' apartment buildings included exercise classes, health information sessions (i.e., health corners), and newsletters. The evaluation examined program participation, program impacts, and how the program worked. The most frequent reason for joining the program was recognizing the benefits of exercise, and the most frequent reason for not attending the program was having other priorities. The main participant impact was "feeling better." Specific impacts were also noted in physical, mental, and social domains. Fun, program delivery adaptations, autonomy, social interactions, and staff-participant relationships were discovered to be important program processes. These processes all contributed to participant's "comfort" in the program. How and why the program worked is examined in relation to Pender's (1996) revised health promotion model and implications for nursing are indicated.

What is the impact on health and wellbeing of interventions that foster respect and social inclusion in community-residing older adults? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

“…Four studies included interventions delivered by peers [ 77 – 80 ], eight were led by the study participants themselves [ 65 , 76 , 81 – 86 ], one involved both professionals and students [ 87 ], four were led by study participants with some support from help desk and community centres [ 67 , 88 – 90 ] and 19 studies were led by professionals [ 66 , 69 – 75 , 91 – 103 ].…”

“…Overall, 12 studies were rated as high and medium-high RoB [ 65 , 69 , 70 , 72 – 74 , 76 , 78 , 85 , 95 , 103 , 104 ], 12 studies as moderate RoB [ 70 , 71 , 75 , 80 , 83 , 84 , 93 , 94 , 97 , 98 , 100 , 102 ] and 21 as low or low-moderate RoB [ 66 – 68 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 96 , 98 – 100 , 105 – 107 ]. The main RoB issues with these studies included small sample size, poor selection of participants and differences observed between intervention and control group participants at baseline.…”

“…Multi-activity interventions included (i) projects to encourage older people to participate in various activities organised in the city [ 99 ], (ii) creative exercise and/or cultural activities wherein older people were guided by peers [ 100 ], (iii) regular gatherings in neighbours’ homes and interactions with others [ 106 ], (iv) social clubs and exercise programmes [ 79 , 90 ] and (v) regular meetings to discuss health information topics including people’s feelings and health [ 73 ].…”

“…Two qualitative studies were included (Additional file 5 ). Participants’ narratives gave insight on the relationship between multi-activity interventions and reduction in depression [ 100 ], wellbeing [ 90 ] and improved physical health [ 90 , 100 ] (Fig. 11 ).…”

Effects of a community health promotion program on social factors in a vulnerable older adult population residing in social housing

“…Research exploring this topic has found that while older adults value social interactions with their peers, they may not be concerned with having developing long-term relationships, and these relationships are easily terminated if the relationship is not reciprocated [ 27 ]. Similarly, Buijs et al [ 28 ], found that conflict between building residents prevented some residents from attending a health promotion program. Relocation in later life, such as to a seniors’ building or assisted-living facility, may also make establishing new relationships for older adults difficult due to worsening health or a decline in physical or cognitive functioning [ 25 , 26 ].…”