To date, a range of qualitative and mixed-methods approaches have been applied to assess the age-friendliness of cities and communities. The Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire (AFCCQ) has been developed to fill a gap for a systematic quantitative method approach to evaluate baseline age-friendliness in cities and communities and then measure ongoing efforts to become more age-friendly, aligned with the model by the World Health Organization (WHO). As such, it offers a valid and valuable quantitative method for cities to assess age-friendliness. This paper presents the process and results of a study undertaken to test the validity and reliability of the AFCCQ for the Australian context. It is part of a broader cross-cultural project seeking to test the AFCCQ across Europe, Asia, Oceania, and North America to generate methodological insight and comparable data. Informed by consultation with local experts in population and ageing research, as well as with people aged 65 and over, the instrument proved reliable in the Australian context before being distributed to 334 older people in Greater Adelaide for validation. Results show that the AFCCQ-AU proved a valid and reliable tool for evaluating the age-friendliness of larger cities and communities in Australia. Overall, the total score indicated moderate-good satisfaction with the age-friendliness features of the Greater Adelaide Region with the domain of Housing scoring highest (highly satisfactory). Psychometric validation and cluster analysis led to the identification of five typologies of older people living in Greater Adelaide, characterised by distinct socio-demographic profiles and concomitant experiences and evaluations of age-friendliness. This Australian validation adds further weight to the role of the AFCCQ in being able to assess the age-friendliness of cities and communities across the WHO's Global Network for Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. Used in combination with the rich and nuanced qualitative data at the local level, the tool has the ability to create significant outcomes for older people and their communities.
MULTIFILE
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of a shortened version of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC) measurement tool (MT). The original version of the measurement tool has been modified (shortened) for the Australian context.DESIGN: Validation of the psychometric properties of the RMIC-MT.SETTING: Healthcare providers providing services to a geographically defined rural area in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 56 healthcare providers providing mental and physical healthcare.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The psychometric properties of the tool were tested using principal component analysis for validity and Cronbach's alpha for reliability.RESULTS: The tool was shown to have good validity and reliability. The 35 items used in the shortened version of the tool were reduced to 29 items grouped into four dimensions: community-governance orientation, normative integration, functional integration and clinical-professional coordination.CONCLUSIONS: The shortened version of the RMIC-MT is a valid and reliable tool that evaluates integrated care from a healthcare provider's perspective in NSW, Australia. In order to assess the tool's appropriateness in an international context, future studies should focus on validating the tool in other healthcare settings.
BACKGROUND: Primary Health Care (PHC) is well suited for management of low back pain (LBP). Prevalence of (chronic) LBP is suspected to be high among visitors of the South African primary care centers, but currently no information exists on prevalence or guideline adherence.OBJECTIVES: To establish if treatment received for LBP in public PHC in the Cape Town area compares with international evidence based guidelines.METHODS: Cluster randomization determined the 8 community health centres where the study took place. A measurement tool was developed and validated for this population. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression analytical techniques were applied.RESULTS: 489 participants (mean age: 44.8) were included in this study. Lifetime prevalence was 73.2% and 26.3% suffered from chronic low back pain (CLBP) . Pain medication was the only form of treatment received by 90% of the sample. Interventions received seemed to be unrelated to type of LBP (acute, sub acute and chronic). Referral to physiotherapy, education and advice to stay active were rarely done. Participants expressed low satisfaction with treatment.CONCLUSIONS: Current management of LBP at PHC level appears to be ineffective and not conform guidelines. Further South African research should focus on barriers as well as measures to be taken for implementation of LBP guidelines.
MULTIFILE
