Advertisement

Ageing International

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 219–235 | Cite as

Ageing in Place in the United Kingdom

  • Andrew SixsmithEmail author
  • Judith Sixsmith
Article

Abstract

Ageing in Place is a key component of UK policy on older people and housing. Helping older people to ‘age in place’ at home is seen to benefit the quality of life and also provide a cost-effective solution to the problems of an expanding population of very old people. However, the reality is not straightforward and in this paper, some results of qualitative research are presented to illustrate the benefits, problems and challenges that exist in relation to Ageing in Place in the United Kingdom. The research is based on qualitative data collected from 40 people age 80–89 in the north-west of England as part of the ENABLE-AGE Project 2002 to 2004. The research suggests that while Ageing in Place may bring social and psychological benefits, there can also be a significant downside on an everyday level. Home in old age can be a place of negative experiences, such as isolation and loneliness and there are often significant weaknesses in terms of informal support, physical environment of the home and neighbourhood and social network, which undermine the person’s ability to live independently. The paper reviews recent UK initiatives to use “telecare” to address some of these issues.

Keywords

Ageing in place UK Community Telecare 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project ENABLE-AGE (Enabling Autonomy, Participation and Well-Being in Old Age: The Home Environment as a Determinant for Healthy Ageing) was funded by the European Commission (QLRT-2001-00334). The authors would like to thank all study participants, consortium and national team members for their contribution.

References

  1. Altman, I., Lawton, M. P., & Wohlwill, J. (Eds.) (1984). Human behaviour and the environment: The elderly and the physical; environment. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  2. Annison, J. (2000). Towards a clearer understanding of the meaning of home. Journal of Intellectual and Development Disability, 25(4), 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audit Commission (1986). Making a reality of community. Care, PSI, London.Google Scholar
  4. Bland, R. (1999). Independence, privacy and risk: two contrasting approaches to residential care for older people. Ageing and Society, 19, 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant, L. L., Corbett, K. K., & Kutner, J. S. (2001). In their own words: a model of healthy aging. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 927–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnholt, V., & Windle, G. (2001). Literature review for the strategy of older people in Wales social inclusion for older people. Viewed at http://www.wales.gov.uk/subisocialpolicy/content/ssg/LR3.pdf
  7. Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Health (2005). Independence well-being and choice Ch. 9. Service delivery and improvement. London: DH.Google Scholar
  9. Despres, C. (1991). The meaning of home; literature review and directions for future research and theoretical development. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8(2), 96–115.Google Scholar
  10. DH (2001). National service framework for older people. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationandstatistics/publications/publicationspolicyandguidance/DH_4003066. Accessed 15/9/08.
  11. Doughty, K., Cameron, K., & Garner, P. (1996). Three generations of telecare for the elderly. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 2(2), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, G. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 80(4), 536–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisk, M. J. (2003). Social alarms to telecare: Older people’s services in transition. Bristol: Policy.Google Scholar
  14. Gifford, R. (1996). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  15. Gitlin, L. (2003). Conducting research on home environments: Lessons learned and new directions. The Gerontologist, 43(5), 628–637.Google Scholar
  16. Iwarsson, S., Wahl, H. W., Oswald, F., Nygren, C., Sixsmith, A., Sixsmith, J., et al. (2007). The European Project ENABLE-AGE: Conceptual and methodological approach. The Gerontologist, 47(1), 78–84.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, J. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moss, P. (1997). Negotiating spaces in home environments: Older women living with arthritis. Social Science and Medicine, 45(1), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rubinstein, R. L., Kilbride, J. C., & Nagy, S. (1992). Elders living alone: Frailty and the perception of choice. New York: Aldine de Gruyer.Google Scholar
  20. Sauvaget, C., Jagger, C., & Arthur, A. J. (2001). Active and cognitive impairment-free life expectancies: results from the Melton Mowbray 75+ health checks. Age and Ageing, 30(6), 509–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Secker, J., Hill, R., et al. (2003). Promoting independence: but promoting what and how. Ageing and Society, 23, 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sixsmith, A. (1990). The meaning and experience of home in later life. In B. Bytheway, & J. Johnson (Eds.), Welfare and the ageing experience. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  23. Sixsmith, A. (2003). UK policy on new technology to support the independent living of older people. International Journal of Gerontechnology, 2(2), 206–210.Google Scholar
  24. Sixsmith, A. (2006). New technologies to support independent living and quality of life for people with dementia. Alzheimer’s Care Quarterly, 7(3), 194–202.Google Scholar
  25. Sixsmith, A., & Sixsmith, J. (1991). Transitions in home experience in later life. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8, 181–191.Google Scholar
  26. Sixsmith, A., Hine, N., Neild, I., Clarke, N., Brown, S., & Garner, P. (2007). Monitoring the well-being of older people. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 23(1), 9–23.Google Scholar
  27. SOPRANO (2007). Review State-of-the-art & market analysis. http://www.soprano-ip.org/ecportal.asp?id=226&nt=18&lang=1. Accessed 15/9/08.
  28. Stratton, D., & Moore, A. (2002). Considerations for conducting research on older men. Reconceptualising Gender and Ageing Conference, Surrey University June 2002.Google Scholar
  29. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Tinker, A. (1997). Housing for elderly people. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 7, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tinker, A., Wright, F., McCreadie, C., Askham, J., Hancock, R., & Holmans, A. (1999). Alternative models of care for older people. Report for the royal commission on long term care. London: TSO.Google Scholar
  32. Wagner, G. (1988). Residential care: A positive choice, report of the independent review of residential care. London: National Institute for Social Work, HMSO.Google Scholar
  33. Woolham, J., Gibson, G., & Clarke, P. (2007). Local responses to the Preventive Technology Grant: findings from a survey of local stakeholders. http://www.atdementia.org.uk/newsStory.asp?page_id=128. Accessed 15/9/08.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gerontology Research CentreSimon Fraser University at Harbour CentreVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Manchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations