Doing Aging Research Together: Innovative Perspectives on Participatory Approaches

The symposium aims to take a closer look at what it means to involve older participants in ageing research - beyond the role of research subjects. By discussing projects that deploy different participatory approaches we investigate the manifold ways in which older adults can become co-creators of the research process. We do so comparing such approaches in different domains, with different outcomes and in different stages of the research process. Consequently, this symposium (1) looks at the research process through the lens of benefits and challenges resulting from involving older adults as co-creators; (2) showcases projects across different domains and different jurisdictions that applied participatory approach in ageing research to discuss benefits and challenges, and (3) advances scientific insights into participatory approaches involving older adults. After an introductory contribution outlining theories, concepts and developments of participatory approaches in ageing research, we present insights from three empirical studies in different cultural and thematic settings. In our first presentation, Anna Wanka and Anna Urbaniak open the symposium by presenting an overview of participatory approaches that involve older adults. In the first empirical presentation, Julia Nolte and Hamid Turker discuss the process of involving older adults in data analysis and therefor present data from the US. In the third presentation, Lillian Hunn highlights how the recent COVID-19 pandemic impacted patient involvement in research in Canada. Finally, Anna Urbaniak discusses the process of planning participatory research with hard to reach population among older adults in Austria, namely those who are socially excluded.

Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) REMOTE study: a remote model of recruitment and assessment of the health, well-being and social circumstances of older people

IntroductionThe Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model.Methods and analysisProspective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care.Data collectionAssessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies).Ethics and disseminationCARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber—Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website.Trial registration numberISRCTN16588124.

Scoping review on medical and social domains of ageing research in Singapore (2008-2018)

Introduction: To examine how ageing research in medical and social domains in Singapore has transformed over time, this scoping review examined the number, types and characteristics of journal publications on ageing in Singapore from 2008 to 2018. Methods: Using relevant search terms, articles were extracted from multiple databases and then screened and reviewed for eligibility and inclusion by independent reviewers. Data such as title of the study, authors, year of publication, name of journal, type of journal, study design and the kind of data used were charted from the included articles for evidence synthesis. Results: Since 2008, there has been a steady increase in the number of publications on ageing in medical and social domains in Singapore. In the medical domain, publications in Ophthalmology formed the largest group of the existing medical literature on ageing in Singapore (22%), followed by Physical Functioning, which involved physiological measurements of physical well-being (17%) and Geriatrics (16%). Non-medical publications comprised 38% of all the included publications, with publications on the social aspects of ageing forming the largest group in this cluster (43%), followed by publications on Prevention (19%) and Healthcare Services (18%). Most studies were observational in study design (82%), with only 3% of interventional studies. Conclusion: While ageing research had expanded in Singapore in the last decade, it was predominantly discipline-specific and observational in design. As ageing issues are complex, with biology intersecting with psychology and sociology, we call for greater interdisciplinary collaboration, interventional studies and more research in understudied and emerging areas.

Individual strategies for successful ageing

Individual strategies are necessary for successful ageing. Three of the models discussed in the previous chapter—the pragmatic, hedonic, and eudaimonic models—put particular emphasis on individuals’ striving to reach their desired endpoints: to be fit, autonomous and engaged; to be happy; or to be wise, respectively. Nevertheless, the primary responsibility for successful ageing lies mainly in the hands of the individual, although external factors may be in place to support the individual’s effort to age successfully. At present, ageing research has focused to a large extent on individual strategies and resources for successful to the individual level. The main results from ageing research are discussed in this chapter.

History of successful ageing

The notion of successful ageing has been one of the most successful but also one of the most controversial concepts of ageing research over the last 60 years. Attempts to uncover the secret of successful ageing have often resembled something like a quest for the Golden Fleece. And that quest continues within contemporary gerontology—so far with no end in sight. As shown in this introductory chapter, human history is full of strivings to live a youthful life without end. Still, controversies over successful ageing continue. In the following chapters of the book various conceptual models are analysed, and strategies and interventions for successful ageing discussed.

A taxonomy of successful ageing conceptions

The authors propose a taxonomy of successful ageing conceptions organized according to five selected models of successful ageing used in ageing research. The models are rooted—explicitly or implicitly—in philosophical traditions describing a good life. The dominant model in gerontological research, Rowe and Kahn’s model of successful ageing, follows the tradition of American pragmatism, emphasizing practical effects of concepts and ideas. In addition to this model, four additional models of successful ageing are introduced and discussed: hedonic, eudaimonic, capability approach, and care ethics-based, each of them coming from different philosophical schools. The five models are compared according to the following criteria: age relevance, inclusiveness, locus of responsibility, normativity, and measurability. The taxonomy lies the ground for all the arguments that follow in the remainder of the book.