Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug;27(4):e70008.
doi: 10.1111/hex.70008.

Public Engagement in Health Policy-Making for Older Adults: A Systematic Search and Scoping Review

Affiliations

Public Engagement in Health Policy-Making for Older Adults: A Systematic Search and Scoping Review

Jeonghwa You et al. Health Expect. 2024 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction: As the world's population ages, there has been increasing attention to developing health policies to support older adults. Engaging older adults in policy-making is one way to ensure that policy decisions align with their needs and priorities. However, ageist stereotypes often underestimate older adults' ability to participate in such initiatives. This scoping review aims to describe the characteristics and impacts of public engagement initiatives designed to help inform health policy-making for older adults.

Methods: A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature (English only) describing public engagement initiatives in health policy-making for older adults was conducted using six electronic databases, Google and the Participedia website. No geographical, methodological or time restrictions were applied to the search. Eligibility criteria were purposefully broad to capture a wide array of relevant engagement initiatives. The outcomes of interest included participants, engagement methods and reported impacts.

Results: This review included 38 papers. The majority of public engagement initiatives were funded or initiated by governments or government agencies as a formal activity to address policy issues, compared to initiatives without a clear link to a specific policy-making process (e.g., research projects). While most initiatives engaged older adults as target participants, there was limited reporting on efforts to achieve participant diversity. Consultation-type engagement activities were most prevalent, compared to deliberative and collaborative approaches. Impacts of public engagement were frequently reported without formal evaluations. Notably, a few articles reported negative impacts of such initiatives.

Conclusion: This review describes how public engagement practices have been conducted to help inform health policy-making for older adults and the documented impacts. The findings can assist policymakers, government staff, researchers and seniors' advocates in supporting the design and execution of public engagement initiatives in this policy sector.

Patient or public contribution: Older adult partners from the McMaster University Collaborative for Health and Aging provided strategic advice throughout the key phases of this review, including developing a review protocol, data charting and synthesis and interpreting and presenting the review findings. This collaborative partnership was an essential aspect of this review, enhancing its relevance and meaningfulness for older adults.

Keywords: health policy; long‐term care; older adults; public engagement; public involvement; scoping review; senior.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of PE initiatives by engagement type.

References

    1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Future Health Care Workforce for Older Americans , Health Status and Health Care Service Utilization,” in Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce, vol. 2 (Washington: National Academies Press (US), 2008), 39–74, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215400/. - PubMed
    1. Rowe G. and Frewer L. J., “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 30, no. 2 (2005): 251–290.
    1. Bruni R. A., Laupacis A., and Martin D. K., “Public Engagement in Setting Priorities in Health Care,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 179, no. 1 (2008): 15–18, 10.1503/cmaj.071656. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. “Meaningful Participation of Older Persons and Civil Society in Policymaking,” UNECE, 2021, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/UNECE%20meaningful%20parti....
    1. Keogh F., Carney P., and O'Shea E., “Innovative Methods for Involving People With Dementia and Carers in the Policymaking Process,” Health Expectations 24, no. 3 (2021): 800–809. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources