Biography
Most of the people recognized me as an aggressive and diligent researcher who especially reflected in the high standard and excellent academic. At the latest academic year, our faculties have illustrated that I am a responsible trustworthy person with an outgoing charm. In addition, I am usually enthusiastic about the extracurricular activities and participate in a community service team and study about how the environment influences people’s health and the importance of the epidemiological study. My responsibilities are to conduct association studies in topics of healthy city and aged-friendly city. This work permits me to accumulate experiment skills and knowledge regarding prevention of human diseases.
Kuo, H.
Paper
Comparison perception on implementing age-friendly Taiwan between facilitators and experts
Background: Since 2012, age friendly city (AFC) program was launched in Taiwan, federal provides various resources including budget supporting, policy advocating and counselling by expert team to guide 22 local authorities. After a three-year period, it is necessary to understand the difference on the recognition of AFC program between facilitators in local authorities and scholars in expert team as well as to take as a reference to improve the direction of AFC program in local authorities.
Methods: Questionnaire was developed and revised by facilitators in local authorities and expert team based on WHO guide, which included the mechanism and process of AFC program with 20 items, the outcome evaluations with 23 items and the integration of resources with 10 items. Five Liker’s scale was used to assess the difference on the opinion of the promotion in AFC program between facilitators in local authorities and scholars in expert team.
Result: There is considerably lower performance in three parts of AFC from the
opinion of expert team. Notably, 29% of difference on mechanisms and processes of AFC program were organized education/training program establish commitment for officers and assess impact and outcome in two groups. Furthermore, inter-exchange experience with local and international cities (40%)、monitor and revise indicators (37%) and evaluate performance of indicators and action plans (37%) were dominated in the part of outcome evaluation. The highest difference on integration of resources with items of interact between government and community (46%) and interact between civil organization and senior society (39%) were indicated.
Conclusion: Obviously, there are a great difference of recognition in implementing AFC program on mechanism and process, outcome evaluation, and integration of resource between facilitators in local authorities and scholars in expert team. It is needs to be further strengthened the constraints of items on three parts and to empower awareness and partnerships with stakeholder and elderly.