Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:11:20.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priorities for an Age-Friendly Bus System*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2010

Kieran Broome ,
Linda Worrall ,
Kryss McKenna  and
Duncan Boldy
Kieran Broome
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Linda Worrall*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Kryss McKenna
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Duncan Boldy
Affiliation:
Curtin University of Technology
*
†Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to / La correspondance et les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à: Linda Worrall, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, AUSTRALIA 4072 (l.worrall@uq.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the results of a study on the barriers and facilitators to bus use for people aged 60 or older. Two complementary methodologies, nominal group technique and focussed ethnography, were used to identify barriers and facilitators and rank their importance. Two sample sites from Queensland, Australia, were selected, with 227 people participating in the nominal group technique and 40 people participating in the focussed ethnography component. Seven priorities for age-friendly bus systems emerged from the data: vehicle entrance/exit; bus driver friendliness and helpfulness; timetables and scheduling of buses; bus stop locations; pedestrian infrastructure; information and training for older people; and bus routes and destinations. These findings will assist researchers, policy makers, and transport providers to set evidence-based strategic directions for creating age-friendly bus systems. Both methods provide complementary perspectives on bus usability, which could not be gained from either method alone.

Résumé

Cette étude a pour but d’identifier les facteurs inhibitant et facilitant l’utilisation de l’autobus chez les personnes âgées de 60 ans et plus d’établir des priorités d’intervention. Deux méthodologies complémentaires, la technique du groupe nominal et l’ethnographie systémique, furent utilisées pour identifier les facteurs inhibiteurs et facilitants et en plus de les classer par ordre d’importance. Deux emplacements de Queensland en Australie etaient choisis: 227 personnes âgées ont participé à la technique du groupe nominal et 40 personnes agées ont participé à l’ethnographie systémique. Sept priorités d’intervention pour des systèmes d’autobus facilement accessibles pour les personnes âgées ont émergé des données obtenues: entrée et sortie du véhicule, amabilité et serviabilité du conducteur d’autobus, horaires des autobus, emplacement des arrêts d’autobus, infrastructure pour les piétons, information et formation pour des aînés et itinéraires et destinations des autobus. Ces résultats permettent aux chercheurs, aux preneurs de décisions et aux fournisseurs de transport de déterminer des directions stratégiques fondées sur des données probantes dans le but d’en arriver à des systèmes d’autobus facilement accessibles aux personnes âgées. Les deux méthodes génèrent des perspectives complémentaires concernant la convivialité de l’utilisation de l’autobus qui n’auraient pas été obtenues par chacune des méthodes utilisée seule.

Keywords

personnes âgéesautobustechnique du groupe nominalobservation des participantsentrevue de rappel stimuléolder peoplebusesnominal group techniqueparticipant observationstimulated recall interview
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 435 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This study has been reviewed and approved by the ethics committee at The University of Queensland.

References

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., & Richardson, C. (2002). Te Toi Huarewa: Effective teaching and learning in total immersion Maori language educational settings. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(1), 44–61.Google Scholar
Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J., & Worrall, L. (2008). Bus use & older people: A literature review applying the person-environment-occupation model in macro practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, J.E., McGavock, A.T., & Nelson, C.A. (2002). Improving public transit options for older persons. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.Google Scholar
Carlsson, G. (2002). Catching the bus in old age; methodological aspects of accessibility assessments in public transport. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.Google Scholar
Carlsson, G. (2004). Travelling by urban public transport: Exploration of usability problems in a travel chain perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11(2), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, B., Worrall, L., & Hickson, L. (2006). Social communication in older age: Lessons from people with aphasia. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 13(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
de Ruyter, K. (1996). Focus versus nominal group interviews: A comparative analysis. Market Intelligence & Planning, 14(6), 44–50.Google Scholar
Department of Justice. (1994). ADA standards for accessible design. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.ada.gov/Google Scholar
ECOMO Foundation. (2001). Guidelines to improve barrier-free access for public transport passenger facilities. Tokyo, Japan: Author.Google Scholar
European Conference of Ministers of Transport. (2006). Improving transport accessibility for all: A guide to good practice. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Gaber, J., & Gaber, S. (2002). Using focus and nominal group techniques for a better understanding of the transit disadvantaged needs. Transportation Planning and Technology, 25(2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasgow, N. (2000). Older Americans patterns of driving and using other transportation. Rural America, 15(3), 26–31.Google Scholar
Glasgow, N., & Blakely, R.M. (2000). Older nonmetropolitan residents’ evaluations of their transportation arrangements. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 19(1), 95–116.Google Scholar
Graneheim, U.H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112.Google Scholar
Hansebo, G., & Kihlgren, M. (2001). Carers’ reflections about their video-recorded interactions with patients suffering from severe dementia. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10(6), 737–747.Google Scholar
Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1999). Use the Delphi and nominal group technique in health services research. In Pope, C. & Mays, N. (Eds.), Qualitative research in health care (pp. 40–49). London: BMJ.Google Scholar
Larkins, B.M., Worrall, L.E., & Hickson, L.M. (2004). Use of multiple methods to determine items relevant for a functional communication assessment. New Zealand Journal of Speech Language Therapy, 59, 13–18.Google Scholar
Mercado, R., Paez, A., Newbold, K.B., Scott, D.M., & Kanaroglou, P. (2006). Transport policy in ageing societies: An international comparison and implications for Canada. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=776232Google Scholar
Metz, D. (2003). Transport policy for an ageing population. Transport Reviews, 23(4), 375–386.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. (2004). Standards and guidelines for accessibility. Paper presented at the TRANSED 2004 Conference, Hamamatsu, Japan.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, S., Mizerski, K., Donovan, R., Leutero, A., Lobo, F., & Carlsen, J. (2002). The age friendly guidelines project. Perth: Government of Western Australia Department for Community Development. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.community.wa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/5C473211-F8E6-42FA-9C98-8492435B1351/0/DCDRPTAgefriendlyguidelines200309.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345–352.Google Scholar
Sink, S. (1983). Using the nominal group technique effectively. National Productivity Review, 2(2), 173–184.Google Scholar
Skovdahl, K., Kihlgren, A.L., & Kihlgren, M. (2004). Dementia and aggressiveness: Stimulated recall interviews with caregivers after video-recorded interactions. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13(4), 505–525.Google Scholar
Williams, D. (2002). Disability standards for accessible public transport 2002. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (2001). ICF; international classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (2007a). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.who.int/ageing/age_friendly_cities/en/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. (2007b). Global age-friendly cities project. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved Mar 9, 2007, from http://www.who.int/ageing/projects/age_friendly_cities/en/index.htmlGoogle Scholar