IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0297299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priorities and barriers for ageing well; results from stakeholder workshops in rural and urban Rwanda

Author

Listed:
  • Theogene Uwizeyimana
  • Aimable Uwimana
  • Collins Fred Inkotanyi
  • Dina Goodman-Palmer
  • Samuel Ntaganira
  • Leslie Kanyana
  • Maria Lisa Odland
  • Sandra Agyapong-Badu
  • Lisa Hirschhorn
  • Tsion Yohannes
  • Carolyn Greig
  • Justine Davies

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Theogene Uwizeyimana & Aimable Uwimana & Collins Fred Inkotanyi & Dina Goodman-Palmer & Samuel Ntaganira & Leslie Kanyana & Maria Lisa Odland & Sandra Agyapong-Badu & Lisa Hirschhorn & Tsion Yohannes , 2024. "Priorities and barriers for ageing well; results from stakeholder workshops in rural and urban Rwanda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0297299
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297299
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297299&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0297299?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0297299. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.