Abstract
Background: The National Older Person's Policy of 2021 in Rwanda highlights the need for social protection of older populations. However, there is a lack of local knowledge regarding the priorities and challenges to healthy aging faced by older people and their caregivers.
Objectives: This study aimed to identify and compare the needs and priorities of older people and other stakeholders involved in caring for them in rural and urban areas of Rwanda.
Methods: The study was conducted in two locations, Kigali (urban) and Burera district (rural). Each site hosted two separate one-day workshops with older people (60 years) and stakeholders (all ages). Discussions were held in plenary and roundtable-groups to generate a list of the top 4 prioritized responses on areas of importance, priorities/enablers to be addressed, and obstacles to living a healthy and active life for older people. The research team identified similarities between stakeholder and older people's responses in each area and a socio-ecological model was used to categorize findings.
Results: There were substantial differences in responses between rural and urban areas and between older people and stakeholders. For each question posed, in each rural or urban area, there was only agreement between stakeholders and older people for a maximum of one response. Whereas, when comparing responses from the same participant groups in urban or rural settings, there was a maximum agreement of two responses, with two questions having no agreement in responses at all. Responses across all discussion-areas were mostly categorized within the Societal level, with Individual, Relationship, and Environment featuring less frequently.
Conclusion: This study highlights the need for contextually curated interventions to address the concerns of older adults and their caregivers in rural and urban settings. An inclusive and multidimensional approach is needed to conquer the barriers that impede healthy aging, with input from various stakeholders.
Objectives: This study aimed to identify and compare the needs and priorities of older people and other stakeholders involved in caring for them in rural and urban areas of Rwanda.
Methods: The study was conducted in two locations, Kigali (urban) and Burera district (rural). Each site hosted two separate one-day workshops with older people (60 years) and stakeholders (all ages). Discussions were held in plenary and roundtable-groups to generate a list of the top 4 prioritized responses on areas of importance, priorities/enablers to be addressed, and obstacles to living a healthy and active life for older people. The research team identified similarities between stakeholder and older people's responses in each area and a socio-ecological model was used to categorize findings.
Results: There were substantial differences in responses between rural and urban areas and between older people and stakeholders. For each question posed, in each rural or urban area, there was only agreement between stakeholders and older people for a maximum of one response. Whereas, when comparing responses from the same participant groups in urban or rural settings, there was a maximum agreement of two responses, with two questions having no agreement in responses at all. Responses across all discussion-areas were mostly categorized within the Societal level, with Individual, Relationship, and Environment featuring less frequently.
Conclusion: This study highlights the need for contextually curated interventions to address the concerns of older adults and their caregivers in rural and urban settings. An inclusive and multidimensional approach is needed to conquer the barriers that impede healthy aging, with input from various stakeholders.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e0297299 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | PLOS One |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Funding:JD and CG were funded by the Institute of Global Innovation (IGI) at the University of Birmingham, UK. The funding was internal, so there is no grant number. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The URL of the IGI website is: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/global-goals/igi/index.aspx.
