Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 96, Issue 6, pp 467–470 | Cite as

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention for Older Adults

Intervention Themes and Strategies Used in Québec Local Community Health Centres and Seniors’ Day Centres
  • Lucie RichardEmail author
  • Lise Gauvin
  • Francine Ducharme
  • Céline Gosselin
  • Jean-Philippe Sapinski
  • Maryse Trudel
Article

Abstract

Objective: Despite the considerable potential of disease prevention and health promotion (DPHP) among older adults, extant data suggest that this field of intervention is still underdeveloped. To shed further light on this issue, this paper presents the results of an inventory of DPHP interventions for older adults conducted in local community health centres (CLSCs) and seniors’ day centres in the province of Québec.

Methods: All CLSCs (N=147) and day centres (N=124) were invited to participate (response rates: 74% and 79%). Data were collected through telephone interviews. Interventions were coded according to type of intervention strategies and target themes.

Results: Awareness-raising and health education strategies emerged as the most frequently-cited type of intervention strategies, reported by 77% of CLSCs and 95% of day centres, respectively. The two themes reported by a majority of CLSCs were physical health (87%) and community issues (58%). Lifestyle habits (92%) and social issues (92%) were the two most frequently-cited themes in day centres.

Discussion: DPHP for older adults is substantially well developed in terms of intervention offerings in the two types of organizations under study. However, the range of available interventions requires expansion to increase the potential of DPHP programs to tackle the numerous challenges posed by the aging of the population.

MeSH terms

Health promotion prevention & control aged community health centres 

Résumé

Objectif: En dépit des possibilités considérables que présentent la prévention et la promotion de la santé (PPS) pour les clientèles aînées, les données existantes portent à croire que ce champ d’intervention est encore relativement peu exploité. Afin d’éclairer la réflexion sur cette question, cet article présente les résultats d’un inventaire des interventions de PPS destinées aux aînés et offertes par les CLSC et centres de jour du Québec.

Méthode: Tous les CLSC (n=147) et les centres de jour (n=124) ont été invités à participer (taux de réponse: 74 % et 79 %, respectivement). Les données ont été recueillies au moyen d’entrevues téléphoniques. Les interventions recensées ont été codées selon deux dimensions: leurs thématiques et leurs stratégies.

Résultats: Les stratégies d’éducation à la santé et de sensibilisation ressortent comme étant la catégorie de stratégies la plus fréquemment déclarée (dans 77 % des CLSC et 95 % des centres de jour). Par ailleurs, la santé physique (87 %) et les problématiques communautaires (58 %) sont les deux thématiques déclarées par une majorité de CLSC. Du côté des centres de jour, les habitudes de vie (92 %) et les problématiques sociales (92 %) émergent comme étant les thématiques les plus fréquentes.

Discussion: La PPS pour les aînés semble être un secteur d’intervention relativement bien exploité, du moins lorsqu’on considère l’offre de services dans les deux types d’organisations étudiées ici. Toutefois, la gamme des interventions disponibles devra être élargie si l’on veut accroître le potentiel de la PPS eu égard aux nombreux défis que pose le vieillissement de la population.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ebrahim S. Public health implications of ageing. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997;51:469–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maddox GL. The behavioral and social dynamics of aging well. In: Smedley BD, Syme SL (Eds), Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies from Social and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000;322–36.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rice PR, Fineman N. Economic implications of increased longevity in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health 2004;25:457–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keller C, Fleury J. Health Promotion for the Elderly. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minkler M, Schauffler H, Clements-Nolle K. Health promotion for older Americans in the 21st century. Am J Health Promot 2000;14:371–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heidrich SM. Health promotion in old age. Annu Rev Nurs Res 1998;16:173–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Albert SM, Im A, Raveis VH. Public health and the second 50 years of life. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1214–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ory MG, Hoffman MK, Hawkins M, Sanner B, Mockenhaupt R. Challenging aging stereotypes: Strategies for creating a more active society. Am J Prev Med 2003;25(3Sii):164–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Craig DM. Health promotion with older adults. In: Stewart MJ, ed. Community Health Nursing: Promoting Canadians’ Health, 2nd ed. Toronto, ON: Saunders, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beattie BL, Whitelaw N, Mettler M, Turner D. A vision for older adults and health promotion. Am J Health Promot 2003;18(2):200–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    King AC. Interventions to promote physical activity by older adults. J Geront B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2001;56:36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKinlay JB. The new public health approach to improving physical activity and autonomy in older populations. In: Heikkinen E (Ed.), Preparation for Aging. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1995;87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Satariano WA, McAuley E. Promoting physical activity among older adults: From ecology to the individual. Am J Prev Med 2003;25(3Sii):184–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epp J. Achieving Health for All: A Framework for Health Promotion. Ottawa, ON: Health and Welfare Canada, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. La politique de la santé et du bien-être. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smedley BD, Syme SL (Eds.), Promoting Health. Intervention Strategies from Social and Behavioral Research. A Report of the Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization & Health and Welfare Canada and the Canadian Public Health Association. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Can J Public Health 1986;77:425–30.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    World Health Organization. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF. Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med 2004;27(1):67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schiamberg LB, Gans D. Elder abuse by adult children: An applied ecological framework for understanding contextual risk factors and the intergenerational character of quality of life. Int J Aging Hum Dev 2000;50(4):329–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wallace SP, Levin JR. Patterns of health promotion programs for older adults in Local Health Departments. Am J Health Promot 2000;15:130–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balsam AL, Ristinen E, Emond J, Emond SK. Elder health programs in state health agencies. Public Health Rep 1996;111:162–64.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zaza S, Lawrence RS, Mahan CS, Fullilove M, Fleming D, Isham GJ, et al. Scope and organization of the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(1S):27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stokols D, Grzywacz JG, McMahan S, Phillips K. Increasing the health promotive capacity of human environments. Am J Health Promot 2003;18(1):4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daveluy C, Pica L, Audet N, Courtemanche R, Lapointe F. Enquête sociale et de santé 1998 [Health and Social Survey 1998] 2nd edition. Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucie Richard
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Lise Gauvin
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  • Francine Ducharme
    • 1
    • 4
  • Céline Gosselin
    • 3
  • Jean-Philippe Sapinski
    • 2
  • Maryse Trudel
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of NursingUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.GRISUniversité de MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Montreal Public Health DepartmentMontreal-Centre Regional Health and Social Services BoardCanada
  4. 4.Centre de rechercheInstitut universitaire de gériatrie de MontréalCanada
  5. 5.Centre de recherche Léa-Roback sur les inégalités sociales de santé de MontréalCanada
  6. 6.Department of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversité de MontréalUSA

Personalised recommendations