郭亚文, 傅华, 唐宇扬, 吕喆, 丁晓沧. 老年友好城市核心指标的调查结果分析[J]. 上海预防医学, 2016, 28(10): 717-723,751.
引用本文: 郭亚文, 傅华, 唐宇扬, 吕喆, 丁晓沧. 老年友好城市核心指标的调查结果分析[J]. 上海预防医学, 2016, 28(10): 717-723,751.
GUO Ya-wen, FU Hua, TANG Yu-yang, LV Zhe, DING Xiao-cang. Analysis on survey of core indicators for elderly-friendly cities[J]. Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2016, 28(10): 717-723,751.
Citation: GUO Ya-wen, FU Hua, TANG Yu-yang, LV Zhe, DING Xiao-cang. Analysis on survey of core indicators for elderly-friendly cities[J]. Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2016, 28(10): 717-723,751.

老年友好城市核心指标的调查结果分析

Analysis on survey of core indicators for elderly-friendly cities

  • 摘要: 目的 开展老年友好城市的相关指标评估,为开展相关工作提供依据。方法 用问卷调查、结构式访谈等方法,对上海市静安区1 500名60岁以上老年人进行调查。结果 核心指标:79.8%认为居住地行走方便,90.3%认为上海的公共交通、轨道交通、出租车适宜各种行动能力的人(包括肢残、视残、听残者),94.8%认为住房支出支付无困难,96.0%认为社区尊老氛围好,56.8%参与社区志愿者活动,6.7%担任有偿工作,53.5%参与社会文化活动,99.7%认为所在的社区能得到健康或社区服务信息,71.2%认为如有需要在家可以得到免费或低于市价的服务。一些核心指标在不同性别、年龄、文化、婚姻、户籍、经济来源和经济水平者中差异明显。补充和自选指标:居家养老的设施应有率至少1项和至少4项的分别占98.6%和75.6%,参与社区文体团队的占26.3%,过去1年中参加过至少1项教育培训项目的占55.2%,自评健康状况好的占90.5%。结论 社区无障碍硬件环境建设覆盖率较高,尊老氛围好,居家养老服务覆盖较广。老年人对社区活动、各类培训有一些参与。老年人参与当地决策有待提高,自住房屋的适老性改造有待改进,同时要关注经济、社会、人口、文化等因素的影响。

     

    Abstract: Objective To assess pertinent indicators of elderly-friendly city, so as to provide the basis for carrying out the related work. Methods There were 1 500 elderly people aged at and above 60 years old that were surveyed via questionnaires and structured interviews. Results The core indicators:79.8% reported that their neighborhood was convenient for walking; 90.3% reported that bus, underground and taxi in Shanghai were suitable for all types of people (including the physically handicapped, the blind, and the deaf); 94.8% reported that there was no difficulty in the payment of housing; 96.0% reported that the community had good atmosphere of respecting for the elderly; 56.8% participated in community volunteer activities; 6.7% participated in paid work; 53.5% participated in social and cultural activities; 99.7% reported that they could obtain information on health and social services from the community; 71.2% reported that they could obtain services for free or below market price when necessary at home. Some core indicators had obvious differences among different genders, age groups, culture, marital status, household types, income sources and income levels. Supplementary and optional indicators:98.6% thought there should be at least one item of house facilities for home-based care for the aged, while 75.6% thought there should be at least four items. 26.3% reported to have participated in community team activities. 55.2% reported to have participated at least one education or training project during the past one year. 90.5% self-reported of good health conditions. Conclusion There is high coverage of barrier-free facility construction, good atmosphere of respecting for the elderly in the community, wide coverage of home-based care for the aged. The elderly people, to some extent, are involved in community activities and various types of training. However, there are still improvements of participation of the elderly in decision-making of local policies, and of senile transformation of the houses the elderly. At the same time, economic, social, demographical, cultural and other factors should be paid close attention to.

     

/

返回文章
返回