European Journal of Ageing

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 79–88 | Cite as

Challenges of cross-national housing research with older persons: lessons from the ENABLE-AGE project

  • Susanne Iwarsson
  • Hans-Werner Wahl
  • Carita Nygren
Original Investigation

Abstract

Although it is generally acknowledged that housing is a major issue regarding health in old and very old age, most empirical research still tends to treat the role of the housing environment in a rather superficial manner. The cross-national project Enabling Autonomy, Participation, and Well-Being in Old Age: The Home Environment as a Determinant for Healthy Ageing (ENABLE-AGE) seeks to make a substantial contribution to this shortcoming. The main objective of the project is to examine subjective and objective aspects of housing and their impact on health in very old age, while health is understood mainly in terms of autonomy, participation and well-being. The project involves five European Union member countries, i.e. Sweden (coordinating unit), Germany, the United Kingdom, Latvia and Hungary. The total sample includes 1,918 older adults in the age range of 75–89 years and living in single households. We provide a systematic analysis of major challenges coming with cross-national research in the housing and ageing domain based on the experience of the ENABLE-AGE Project. Treated are: challenges related to sampling and data collection procedures, challenges related to inclusion and exclusion criteria based on housing characteristics, challenges related to differences in housing legislation, norms, and guidelines, challenges related different availability of professional expertise for person-environment assessments, challenges related to valid and reliable person-environment assessments, and challenges related to the interpretation of housing-related findings.

Keywords

Housing Health Person-environment fit Accessibility Very old age 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The ENABLE-AGE Project is funded by the European Commission (QLRT-2001-00334). We are also grateful to the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS), and the Swedish Research Council for additional funding. We thank the national team leaders for providing input: Dr. F. Oswald, German Centre for Research on Ageing at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, Dr. A. Sixsmith, University of Liverpool, UK, Dr. J. Sixsmith, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, Dr. Z. Széman, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary, and reg. occupational therapist S. Tomsone, Riga Stradinja University, Latvia.

References

  1. Acsády J, Kucsera C, Széman Z (2004) ENABLE-AGE survey study T1: national report Hungary. Project QLRT-2001-0, delivered to the European Commission. Institute of Sociology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltes PB, Smith J (1999) Multilevel and systemic analyses of old age: theoretical and empirical evidence for a fourth age. In: Bengtson VL, Schaie KW (eds) Handbook of theories of aging. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 153–173Google Scholar
  3. Brandt Å, Iwarsson S, Ståhl A (2004) Older people’s use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med 36:70–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Charmaz K (1996) Grounded theory. In: Smith JA (ed) Rethinking methods in psychology. Sage, London, pp 27–49Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz K (2003) Grounded theory. In: Smith JA (ed) Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods. Sage, London, pp 81–110Google Scholar
  6. Fänge A, Iwarsson S (2003) Accessibility and usability in housing—construct validity and implications for research and practice. Disabil Rehabil 25:1316–1325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gitlin LN (1998) Testing home modification interventions: issues of theory, measurement, design, and implementation. In: Schulz, Maddox, Lawton (eds) Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics. Interventions research with older adults. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 190–246Google Scholar
  8. Gitlin LN (2003) Conducting research on home environments: Lessons learned and new directions. Gerontologist 43:628–637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Harkness J (1999) In pursuit of quality: issues for cross-national survey research. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2:2:125–140Google Scholar
  11. Iwarsson S (2004) Assessing the fit between older people and their home environments—an occupational therapy research perspective. In: Wahl H-W, Scheidt R, Windley P (ed) Environments, gerontology and old age. Annu Rev Gerontol Geriatr 23:85–109Google Scholar
  12. Iwarsson S, Slaug B (2001) The Housing Enabler. An instrument for assessing and analysing accessibility problems in housing. Veten & Skapen HB & Slaug Data Management, Nävlinge and StaffanstorpGoogle Scholar
  13. Iwarsson S, Isacsson Å (1996) Development of a novel instrument for occupational therapy assessment of the physical environment in the home—a methodologic study on “the Enabler”. Occup Ther J Res 16:227–244Google Scholar
  14. Iwarsson S, Ståhl A (2003) Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil 25:57–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Iwarsson S, Sixsmith J, Oswald F, Wahl H-W, Nygren C, Sixsmith A, Széman Z, Tomsone S (2004) The ENABLE-AGE Project: multi-dimensional methodology for European housing research. In: Wilkinson N, Hurol Y (eds) Housing research methodologies. Urban International, MersinGoogle Scholar
  16. Iwarsson S, Nygren C, Slaug B (2004) Cross-national and multi-professional inter-rater reliability of the Housing Enabler. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Jackson J (2002) Conceptual, methodological linkages in cross-cultural groups, cross-national aging research. J Soc Issues 58:4:825–835Google Scholar
  18. Kahana E (1982) A congruence model of person-environment interaction. In: Lawton, Windley, Byerts (eds) Aging and the environment. Theoretical approaches. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 97–121Google Scholar
  19. Kohn ML (1987) Cross-national research as analytic strategy. Am Sociol Rev 52:713–731Google Scholar
  20. Kovács M (2000) Housing conditions of the elderly. In: Szücs Z (ed) The situation of the elderly in Hungary in the 90s (in Hungarian). HU, Budapest, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  21. Lawton MP (1983) Environment and other determinants of well-being in older people. Gerontologist 23:349–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawton MP, Nahemow L (1973) Ecology and the aging process. In. Eisdorfer C, Lawton MP (eds) The psychologist of adult development and aging. American Psychological Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawton MP, Simon B (1968) The ecology of social relationships in housing for the elderly. Gerontologist 8:108–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynn P (2003) Developing quality standards for cross-national survey research five approaches. Int J Soc Res Methodol 4:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan K (1998) The Nottingham Longitudinal Study of Activity and Ageing: a methodological overview. Age Ageing 27:5–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nygren C, Johannisson A, Iwarsson S (2004) ENABLE-AGE Survey Study T1: national report Sweden Project QLRT-2001-00334, delivered to the European Commision. Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  27. Oswald F, Wahl H-W, Mollenkopf H et al (2004) ENABLE-AGE. Survey study T1. Preliminary descriptive findings from Germany. Report no 18. German Centre for Research on Ageing, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  28. Preiser WFE, Ostroff E (eds) (2001) Universal design handbook. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheidt RJ, Norris-Baker C (2004) The general ecological model revisited: evolution, current status, continuing challenges. In: Wahl H-W, Scheidt RJ, Windley PG (eds) Aging in context: socio-physical environments. Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, vol 23. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 34–58Google Scholar
  30. Singh J (1995) Measurement issues in cross-national research. J Int Business Studies 26:3:597–619Google Scholar
  31. Sixsmith A, Sixsmith J, Green S et al (2004) ENABLE-AGE Survey Study T1: national report United Kingdom. Project QLRT-2001-00334, delivered to the European Commision. University of Liverpool, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  32. Slaug B, Iwarsson S (2001) Housing Enabler 1.0—a tool for housing accessibility analysis. Software for PC. Veten & Skapen HB & Slaug Data Management, Nävlinge and StaffanstorpGoogle Scholar
  33. Steinfeld E, Danford GS (1999) Theory as a basis for research on enabling environments. In: Steinfeld E, Danford GS (eds) Enabling environments. Measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation. Kluwer/Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Stuck AE, Walthert JM, Nikolaus T, Büla CJ, Hohmann C, Beck JC (1999) Risk factors for functional status decline in community-living elderly people: a systematic literature review. Soc Sci Med 48:445–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tomsone S, Litvjakova N, Teibe U (2004) ENABLE-AGE Survey Study T1: national report Latvia. Project QLRT-2001-00334, delivered to the European Commission. University of Riga, RigaGoogle Scholar
  36. Treloar C, Graham ID (2003) Multidisciplinary cross national studies: a commentary on issues on collaboration, methodology, analysis, publication. Qual Health Res 13:7:924–932Google Scholar
  37. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM (1994) The disablement process. Soc Sci Med 38:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wahl HW (2001) Environmental influences on aging and behavior. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW, (eds) Handbook of the psychology of aging. Academic, San Diego, pp 215–237Google Scholar
  39. Wahl H-W, Weisman GD (2003) Environmental gerontology at the beginning of the new millennium: reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical development. Gerontologist 43:616–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wahl HW, Oswald F, Zimprich D (1999) Everyday competence in visually impaired older adults: a case for person-environment perspectives. Gerontologist 39:140–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wahl H-W, Scheidt R, Windley P (eds) (2004) Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, vol 23. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. World Health Organisation (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Iwarsson
    • 1
  • Hans-Werner Wahl
    • 2
  • Carita Nygren
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Clinical NeuroscienceLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.German Centre for Research on AgeingUniversity at HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations