David Burnes and Chantal Barber are with the University of Toronto, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Christine Sheppard is a PhD candidate at University of Waterloo, School of Public Health and Health Systems, Waterloo, Ontario. Charles R. Henderson Jr and Karl Pillemer are with Cornell University, Department of Human Development, Ithaca, NY. Monica Wassel, Richenda Cope, and Karl Pillemer are with Cornell University, Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, Ithaca.
Am J Public Health. 2019 Aug;109(8):e1-e9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305123. Epub 2019 Jun 20.
Research has found a strong link between ageism, in the form of negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination toward older people, and risks to their physical and mental health. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of strategies to reduce ageism. To assess the relative effects of 3 intervention types designed to reduce ageism among youths and adults-education, intergenerational contact, and combined education and intergenerational contact-by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, AgeLine, EBSCO, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Collaboration, PROSPERO, GreyLit, and OpenGrey. We identified additional records by hand-searching reference lists of relevant review articles as well as records included in the meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers completed the search and screening process. . Eligible studies were those that (1) evaluated an intervention designed to reduce ageism, (2) examined at least 1 ageism outcome in relation to older adults, (3) used a design with a comparison group (randomized or nonrandomized), and (4) were published after 1970, when the ageism concept was developed. Two independent reviewers extracted study-level data from records using a common data collection spreadsheet. They also assessed study quality by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) tool to assess quality of outcome evidence. Primary outcomes were attitudes toward older people and accuracy of knowledge about aging and older people. Secondary outcomes included comfort with older adults, anxiety about one's own aging, and interest in working in the field of geriatrics or gerontology. We carried out meta-analyses with statistical mixed models. We identified 63 eligible studies (1976-2018) with a total sample of 6124 participants. Ageism interventions demonstrated a strongly significant effect on attitudes (differences of standardized mean differences [d] = 0.33; < .001), knowledge (d = 0.42; < .001), and comfort (d = 0.50; < .001), but no significant effect on anxiety (d = 0.13; = .33) or working with older adults (d = -0.09; = .40). Combined interventions with education and intergenerational contact showed the largest effects on attitudes. We found stronger effects for females and for adolescent and young adult groups. Interventions are associated with substantial reduction in ageism and should be part of an international strategy to improve perceptions of older people and the aging process. Additional research using more rigorous designs to examine the effects of interventions is strongly recommended. Ageism has well-established negative effects on the physical and mental health of older people. Findings suggest that relatively low-cost, feasible strategies involving education and intergenerational contact can serve as the basis of effective interventions to reduce ageism.
研究发现,年龄歧视(以对老年人的负面刻板印象、偏见和歧视的形式)与老年人的身心健康风险之间存在很强的关联。然而,对于减少年龄歧视的策略的有效性知之甚少。为了评估旨在减少青少年和成年人中年龄歧视的 3 种干预类型的相对效果——教育、代际接触和教育与代际接触相结合——我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。我们在 PubMed、PsycINFO、AgeLine、EBSCO、Embase、护理与联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)、全球医学索引(Global Index Medicus)、效应摘要数据库(DARE)、循证医学知识库(Epistemonikos)、Cochrane 系统评价数据库、坎贝尔协作、PROSPERO、灰色文献数据库和 OpenGrey 中进行了搜索。我们通过手工搜索相关综述文章的参考文献列表以及荟萃分析中包含的记录,找到了其他记录。两名独立审查员完成了搜索和筛选过程。合格的研究是那些(1)评估旨在减少年龄歧视的干预措施,(2)至少考察了 1 项与老年人有关的年龄歧视结果,(3)使用了具有对照组(随机或非随机)的设计,以及(4)发表于 1970 年之后,当时年龄歧视概念已经形成。两名独立审查员使用通用数据收集电子表格从记录中提取研究水平数据。他们还使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估了研究质量,并使用推荐、评估、制定和评价(GRADE)工具评估了结果证据的质量。主要结果是对老年人的态度和对衰老和老年人的知识准确性。次要结果包括对老年人的舒适度、对自身衰老的焦虑以及对从事老年医学或老年学领域工作的兴趣。我们使用统计混合模型进行了荟萃分析。我们确定了 63 项符合条件的研究(1976-2018 年),总样本量为 6124 名参与者。年龄歧视干预措施对态度(标准化均数差的差异[d] = 0.33; < .001)、知识(d = 0.42; < .001)和舒适度(d = 0.50; < .001)具有显著影响,但对焦虑(d = 0.13; = .33)或与老年人合作(d = -0.09; = .40)没有显著影响。结合教育和代际接触的干预措施对态度的影响最大。我们发现女性和青少年及年轻成年人组的效果更强。干预措施与年龄歧视的大幅减少有关,应成为改善老年人和衰老过程的看法的国际战略的一部分。强烈建议使用更严格的设计来进一步研究干预措施的效果。年龄歧视对老年人的身心健康有既定的负面影响。研究结果表明,涉及教育和代际接触的相对低成本、可行策略可以作为减少年龄歧视的有效干预措施的基础。