IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i12p4523-d375439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three: Case Studies from Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Sariyamon Tiraphat

    (ASEAN Institute for Health Development, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

  • Doungjai Buntup

    (ASEAN Institute for Health Development, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand)

  • Murallitharan Munisamy

    (National Cancer Society of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 50300, Malaysia)

  • Thang Huu Nguyen

    (Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam)

  • Motoyuki Yuasa

    (Faculty of International Liberal Arts, Juntendo University, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan)

  • Myo Nyein Aung

    (Faculty of International Liberal Arts, Juntendo University, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan)

  • Aung Hpone Myint

    (Community Partners International (CPI), Bahan Township, Yangon 11201, Myanmar)

Abstract

Promoting age-friendly environment is one of the appropriate approaches to support quality of life toward ageing populations. However, the information regarding age-friendly environments in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Plus Three countries is still limited. This study aimed to survey the perceived age-friendly environments among ASEAN Plus Three older populations. The study employed cross-sectional quantitative research using multistage cluster sampling to select a sample of older adults in the capital cities of Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand. The final sample was composed of 2171 older adults aged 55 years and over, including 140 Japanese, 510 Thai, 537 Malaysian, 487 Myanmarese, and 497 Vietnamese older adults. Data collection was conducted using a quantitative questionnaire with 20 items of perceived age-friendly environments with the rating scale based on the World Health Organization (WHO) standard. The score from the 20 items were analyzed and examined high-risk groups of “bad perception level” age-friendly environments using ordinal logistic regression. The research indicated the five highest inadequacies of age-friendly environments including: (1) participating in an emergency-response training session or drill which addressed the needs of older residents; (2) enrolling in any form of education or training, either formal or non-formal in any subject; (3) having opportunities for paid employment; (4) involvement in decision making about important political, economic and social issues in the community; and (5) having personal care or assistance needs met in the older adult’s home setting by government/private care services. Information regarding the inadequacy of age-friendliness by region was evidenced to guide policy makers in providing the right interventions towards older adults’ needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Sariyamon Tiraphat & Doungjai Buntup & Murallitharan Munisamy & Thang Huu Nguyen & Motoyuki Yuasa & Myo Nyein Aung & Aung Hpone Myint, 2020. "Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three: Case Studies from Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4523-:d:375439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4523/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4523/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aleksej Bukov & Ineke Maas & Thomas Lampert, 2002. "Social Participation in Very Old Age," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 57(6), pages 510-517.
    2. Joost Van Hoof & Jan K. Kazak & Jolanta M. Perek-Białas & Sebastiaan T. M. Peek, 2018. "The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Hannah R. Marston & Joost van Hoof, 2019. "“Who Doesn’t Think about Technology When Designing Urban Environments for Older People?” A Case Study Approach to a Proposed Extension of the WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-35, September.
    4. Izabela Kurtyka-Marcak & Maria Hełdak & Katarzyna Przybyła, 2019. "The Actual Demand for the Elimination of Architectural Barriers among Senior Citizens in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Jeffrey P. Carpenter & Amrita G. Daniere & Lois M. Takahashi, 2004. "Social Capital and Trust in South-east Asian Cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(4), pages 853-874, April.
    6. Teerawichitchainan, Bussarawan & Prachuabmoh, Vipan & Knodel, John, 2019. "Productive aging in developing Southeast Asia: Comparative analyses between Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 161-171.
    7. Sariyamon Tiraphat & Karl Peltzer & Kriengsak Thamma-Aphiphol & Kawinarat Suthisukon, 2017. "The Role of Age-Friendly Environments on Quality of Life among Thai Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katarzyna Przybyła & Maria Hełdak & Izabela Kurtyka-Marcak, 2019. "Demand for a Housing Offer Addressed to Senior Citizens in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Joost van Hoof & Hannah R. Marston, 2021. "Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Hannah R. Marston & Kelly Niles-Yokum & Paula Alexandra Silva, 2021. "A Commentary on Blue Zones ® : A Critical Review of Age-Friendly Environments in the 21st Century and Beyond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-33, January.
    4. Joost van Hoof & Jeroen Dikken & Willeke H. van Staalduinen & Suzan van der Pas & Rudy F. M. van den Hoven & Loes M. T. Hulsebosch-Janssen, 2022. "Towards a Better Understanding of the Sense of Safety and Security of Community-Dwelling Older Adults. The Case of the Age-Friendly City of The Hague," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Loredana Ivan & Dorin Beu & Joost van Hoof, 2020. "Smart and Age-Friendly Cities in Romania: An Overview of Public Policy and Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-25, July.
    6. Jeroen Dikken & Rudy F.M. van den Hoven & Willeke H. van Staalduinen & Loes M.T. Hulsebosch-Janssen & Joost van Hoof, 2020. "How Older People Experience the Age-Friendliness of Their City: Development of the Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-24, September.
    7. Sabina Baraković & Jasmina Baraković Husić & Joost van Hoof & Ondrej Krejcar & Petra Maresova & Zahid Akhtar & Francisco Jose Melero, 2020. "Quality of Life Framework for Personalised Ageing: A Systematic Review of ICT Solutions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Chunmei Zhang & Jun Yang, 2023. "Evaluation of the Quality of the Age-Friendly Environment in Liaoning Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-13, November.
    9. María Ángeles Molina-Martínez & Sara Marsillas & María Sánchez-Román & Elena del Barrio, 2022. "Friendly Residential Environments and Subjective Well-Being in Older People with and without Help Needs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Hui-Chuan Hsu, 2020. "Associations of City-Level Active Aging and Age Friendliness with Well-Being among Older Adults Aged 55 and Over in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-17, June.
    11. Paola Monachesi, 2023. "Age Friendly Characteristics and Sense of Community of an Italian City: The Case of Macerata," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Eugene Seo & Sanghee Lee, 2023. "Implications of Aging in Place in the Context of the Residential Environment: Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(20), pages 1-30, October.
    13. Katja M. Rusinovic & Marianne E. van Bochove & Suzanna Koops-Boelaars & Zsuzsu K.C.T. Tavy & Joost van Hoof, 2020. "Towards Responsible Rebellion: How Founders Deal with Challenges in Establishing and Governing Innovative Living Arrangements for Older People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-15, August.
    14. Markussen, Thomas & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh & Tarp, Finn, 2021. "Inequality, institutions and cooperation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    15. Teerawichitchainan, Bussarawan & Low, Timothy Qing Ying, 2021. "The situation and well-being of custodial grandparents in Myanmar: Impacts of adult children's cross-border and internal migration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    16. Levasseur, Mélanie & Richard, Lucie & Gauvin, Lise & Raymond, Émilie, 2010. "Inventory and analysis of definitions of social participation found in the aging literature: Proposed taxonomy of social activities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(12), pages 2141-2149, December.
    17. Mingyu Sun & Leizi Min & Na Xu & Lei Huang & Xuemei Li, 2021. "The Effect of Exercise Intervention on Reducing the Fall Risk in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, November.
    18. Katrien Luijkx & Leonieke van Boekel & Meriam Janssen & Marjolein Verbiest & Annerieke Stoop, 2020. "The Academic Collaborative Center Older Adults: A Description of Co-Creation between Science, Care Practice and Education with the Aim to Contribute to Person-Centered Care for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Joost van Hoof & Helen Bennetts & Alana Hansen & Jan K. Kazak & Veronica Soebarto, 2019. "The Living Environment and Thermal Behaviours of Older South Australians: A Multi-Focus Group Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    20. Masuda, Yuta J. & Waterfield, Gina & Castilla, Carolina & Kang, Shiteng & Zhang, Wei, 2022. "Does balancing gender composition lead to more prosocial outcomes? Experimental evidence of equality in public goods and extraction games from rural Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4523-:d:375439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.