Advertisement

Intergenerational programs: What can school-age children and older people expect from them? A systematic review

  • Caroline GiraudeauEmail author
  • Nathalie Bailly
Review

Abstract

Over the past 40 years, there has been a growing trend for intergenerational initiatives worldwide. Intergenerational programs (IGPs) aim to facilitate cooperation and exchange among different age groups. While most studies highlight the benefits for each generation, the programs and study designs vary widely. We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature between 2005 and 2015 to: (1) characterize and define the IGPs studied and (2) identify the benefits for school-age children and older people aged 60 years or over. First, 53 articles with defined keywords were collected from online databases. Then, using inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were selected. These were classified according to methodological quality and were analyzed one by one. The content of the programs varied: three involved artistic activities, three educational activities, one health, three open-ended activities, and one was organized around a citizen’s project. Concerning the benefits of IGPs for children and older adults, some studies highlighted significant differences in positive attitudes, behaviors, confidence, and competence for the children, and significant differences in mental and physical health, and quality of life for older adults. However, it should be noted that those benefits are not systematic. Our findings are discussed in the light of the meaningfulness of the activities and the role of IGPs, organization of the program, and participants’ knowledge of the other generation. Future studies may wish to consider searching for additional variables to further refine our understanding of the benefits for participants.

Keywords

Intergenerational programs Children Older adults Systematic review Benefits 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the EA-2114 Psychologie des Ages de la Vie (Francois-Rabelais University).

References

  1. Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayala JS, Hewson JA, Bray D, Jones G, Hartley D (2007) Intergenerational programs. J Intergener Relatsh 5(2):45–60Google Scholar
  3. Belgrave M (2011) The effect of a music therapy intergenerational program on children and older adults’ intergenerational interactions, cross-age attitudes, and older adults’ psychosocial well-being. J Music Ther 48(4):486–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs MJG, Knox KS (2014) Lessons learned from an intergenerational volunteer program: a case study of a shared-site model. J Intergener Relatsh 12(1):54–68Google Scholar
  5. Bland CJ, Meurer LN, Maldonado G (1995) A systematic approach to conducting a non-statistical meta-analysis of research literature. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 70(7):642–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brabazon K (1999) Student improvement in the intergenerational work/study program. In: Kuehne VS (ed) Intergenerational programs: understanding what we have created. The Haworth Press, Binghamton, pp 51–62Google Scholar
  7. Chung JCC (2009) An intergenerational reminiscence programme for older adults with early dementia and youth volunteers: values and challenges. Scand J Caring Sci 23:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen-Mansfield J, Jensen B (2015) Intergenerational programs in schools: prevalence and perceptions of impact. J Appl Gerontol 36:254–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunham CC, Casadonte D (2009) Children’s attitudes and classroom interaction in an intergenerational education program. Educ Gerontol 35(5):453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein AS, Boisvert C (2006) Let’s do something together. J Intergener Relatsh 4:87–109Google Scholar
  11. Erikson EH (1963) Childhood and society. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Eysenck HJ (1995) Problems with meta-analysis. In: Chalmers I, Altman GG (eds) Systematic reviews. BMJ Publishing Group, London, pp 64–74Google Scholar
  13. Femia E, Zarit S, Blair C, Jarrott S, Bruno K (2008) Intergenerational preschool experiences and the young child: potential benefits to development. Early Child Res Q 23:272–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flora PK, Faulkner GE (2007) Physical activity: an innovative context for intergenerational programming. J Intergener Relatsh 4(4):63–74Google Scholar
  15. Fried LP, Carlson MC, McGill S, Seeman T, Xue Q-L, Frick K, Tan E, Tanner EK, Barron J, Frangakis C, Piferi R, Martinez I, Gruenewald T, Martin BK, Berry-Vaughn L, Stewart J, Dickersin K, Willging PR, Rebok GW (2013) Experience Corps: a dual trial to promote the health of older adults and children’s academic success. Contemp Clin Trials 36(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fujiwara Y, Sakuma N, Ohba H, Nishi M, Lee S, Watanabe N, Kousa Y, Yodhida H, Fukaya T, Yajima S, Amano H, Kureta Y, Ishii K, Uchida H (2009) REPRINTS: effects of an intergenerational health promotion program for older adults in Japan. J Intergener Relatsh 7(1):17–39Google Scholar
  17. Gaggioli A, Morganti L, Bonfiglio S, Scaratti C, Cipresso P, Serino S, Riva G (2014) Intergenerational group reminiscence: a potentially effective intervention to enhance elderly psychosocial wellbeing and to improve children’s perception of aging. Educ Gerontol 40(7):486–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galbraith B, Larkin H, Moorthouse A, Oomen T (2015) Intergenerational programs for perdons with dementia: a scoping review. J Gerontol Soc Work 58:357–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gamliel T, Gabay N (2014) Knowledge exchange, social interactions, and empowerment in an intergenerational technology program at school. Educ Gerontol 40(8):597–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. George DR, Singer ME (2011) Intergenerational volunteering and quality of life for persons with mild to moderate dementia: results from a 5-month intervention study in the United States. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 19(4):392–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. George DR, Wagler G (2014) Social learning and innovation: developing two shared-site intergenerational reading programs in Hershey, Pennsylvania. J Intergener Relatsh 12:69–74Google Scholar
  22. George D, Whitehouse C, Whitehouse P (2011) A model of intergenerativity: how the intergenerational school is bringing the generations together to foster collective wisdom and community health. J Intergener Relatsh 9(4):389–404Google Scholar
  23. Gigliotti C, Morris M, Smock S, Jarrott SE, Graham B (2005) An intergenerational summer program involving persons with dementia and preschool children. Educ Gerontol 31:425–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harter S (1982) The perceived competence scale for children. Child Dev 53(1):87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hernandez CR, Gonzalez MZ (2008) Effects of intergenerational interaction on aging. Educ Gerontol 34(4):292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herrmann DS, Sipsas-Herrmann A, Stafford NC (2005) Benefits and risks of intergenerational program participation by senior citizens. Educ Gerontol 31:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heyman J, Gutheil G (2008) They touch our hearts: the experience of shared site intergenerational program participants. J Intergener Relatsh 6(4):397–412Google Scholar
  28. Heyman JC, Gutheil IA, White-Ryan L (2011) Preschool children’s attitudes toward older adults: comparison of intergenerational and traditional day care. J Intergener Relatsh 9(4):435–444Google Scholar
  29. Holmes CL (2009) An intergenerational program with benefits. Early Child Educ J 37:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Isaki E, Harmon MT (2014) Children and adults reading interactively: the social benefits of en exploratory intergenerational program. Commun Disord Q 36:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jarrott SE, Bruno KA (2003) Intergenerational activities involving persons with dementia: an observational assessment. Am J Alzheimer’s Relat Dis 18:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jarrott SE, Bruno K (2007) Shared site intergenerational programs: a case study. J Appl Gerontol 26:239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jarrott SE, Smith CL (2011) The complement of research and theory in practice: contact theory at work in non-familial intergenerational programs. Gerontologist 51:112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamei T, Itoi W, Kajii F, Kawakami C, Hasegawa M, Sugimoto T (2011) Six month outcomes of an innovative weekly intergenerational day program with older adults and school-aged children in a Japanese urban community. Jpn J Nurs Sci 8(1):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan M (2002) Intergenerational programs in schools: consideration of form and function. Intergener Rev Educ 48(4):305–334Google Scholar
  36. Kuehne VS, Melville J (2014) The state of our art: a review of theories used in intergenerational program research (2003–2014) and ways forward. J Intergener Relatsh 12:317–346Google Scholar
  37. Lou VWQ, Dai AAN (2017) A review of non familial intergenerational programs on changing age stereotypes and well-being in East Asia. J Intergener Relatsh 15:143–158Google Scholar
  38. Lynott PP, Merola PR (2007) Improving the attitudes of 4th graders toward older people through a multidimensional intergenerational program. Educ Gerontol 33(1):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marshall MJ, Hutchinson SA (2002) A critique of research on the use of activities with persons with Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 35:488–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marx MS, Hubbard P, Cohen-Mansfield J, Dakheel-Ali M, Thein K (2005) Community-service activities versus traditional activities in an intergenerational visiting program. Educ Gerontol 31(4):263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meshel DS, McGlynn RP (2004) Intergenerational contact, attitudes, and stereotypes of adolescents and older people. Educ Gerontol 30(6):457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morita K, Kobayashi M (2013) Interactive programs with preschool children bring smiles and conversation to older adults: time-sampling study. BMC Geriatr 13:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mulrow CD (1994) Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 309(6954):597–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murayama Y, Ohba H, Yasunaga M, Nonaka K, Takeuchi R, Nishi M, Sakuma N, Uchida H, Shinkai S, Fujiwara Y (2015) The effect of intergenerational programs on the mental health of elderly adults. Aging Ment Health 19(4):306–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.933309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Newman S, Hatton-Yeo A (2008) Intergenerational learning and the contributions of older people. Aging Horiz 8:31–39Google Scholar
  46. Newman S, Riess J (1992) Older workers in intergenerational child care. J Gerontol Soc Work 19(2):45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Newman S, Karip E, Faux RB (1995) Everyday memory function of older adults: the impact of intergenerational school volunteer programs. Educ Gerontol 21(6):569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Newman S, Ward C, Smith T, Wilson J, Mc Crea J (1997) Intergenerational programs: past, present, and future. Taylor and Francis, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Oberg B (2007) Meeting the other: a way of fighting age discrimination: a discussion circle with young and old participants in Sweden. J Intergener Relatsh 5:27–44Google Scholar
  50. Peacock J, O’Quin J (2006) Higher education and foster grandparent programs: exploring mutual benefit. Educ Gerontol 32:367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perry CK, Weatherby K (2011) Feasibility of an intergenerational Tai Chi program: a community-based participatory research project. J Intergener Relatsh 9(1):69–84Google Scholar
  52. Rossberg-Gempton IE, Dickinson JV, Poole G (1999) Creative dance: potentiality for enhancing social functioning in frail seniors and young children. Arts Psychother 26(5):313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Short-DeGraff MA, Diamond K (1996) Intergenerational program effects on social responses of elderly adult day care members. Educ Gerontol 22(5):467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Skropeta CM, Colvin A, Sladen S (2014) An evaluative study of the benefits of participating in intergenerational playgroups in aged care for older people. BMC Geriatr 14:109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Varma VR, Carlson MC, Parisi JM, Tanner EK, McGill S, Fried L, Song LH, Gruenewald TL (2014) Experience corps baltimore: exploring the stressors and rewards of high-intensity civic engagement. Gerontologist 00:1–13Google Scholar
  56. Wescott A, Healy TC (2011) The memory bridge initiative on service learners. Educ Gerontol 37:307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Psychologie des Ages de la Vie et Adaptation (PAVeA)Université de ToursTours Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations