Development and Implementation of an Intergenerational Bonding Program in a Co-Located Model: A Case Study in Singapore
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Ageing in Singapore
1.2. Intergenerational Bonding
1.3. Intergenerational Bonding Programs in Singapore
1.4. Study Aim
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Participants
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Findings
3.1. Opportunity: From Ideation to Early Conceptualization
3.1.1. Opportunity plus Leadership and Innovation Mindset
“Our board of directors I think they certainly have a lot of faith in my boss. She’s been working as the ED for so many years and she’s very well known in our industry. You know so I think they have worked with her long enough to know that it’s not just going to be an idea, it’s most likely a good idea based on good principles, good evidence and they were quite supportive. They knew it was going to cost them a lot of money because a building this huge with all the integrated services etc., and all that, it’s going to cost them a lot of money. But I think they believed in it enough and as an idea when we pitched that, you know it’s going to elevate the quality of life for the residents, it’s going to be good for the staff. It’s basically a win.”(Participant 8, senior management)
3.1.2. Embedding an IGP within the Landscape of SJH and the Community
“… just like if we’re living with our parents, grandparents, we have multiple opportunities to interact … So, we knew that we wanted it to be very much part of the everyday life, everyday routine of the older person, of the younger person to have that kind of interaction.”(Participant 8, senior management)
3.1.3. Workgroup (Organizational Infrastructure)
3.2. Steady State: From Piloting to Wider Implementation
3.2.1. Design, Planning, and Piloting
“We at first, we thought, oh you know that is what the IGP would be, we see us creating a lot of these kind of touchpoints and with various age groups and that would be good enough. But after doing that for a little while, we sort of then sat down as a team and reflected … are we getting the kind of interaction that we really want? Are we seeing that our elderly person is happier because of it? Are the children benefiting, like have their skills improved when they communicate with an elderly person because of it? We realised that these ad-hoc sort of multiple touch points was kind of not good enough for us, for what we really wanted.”(Participant 8, senior management)
- comprise multiple sessions (6–8)—no “touch-and-go” activities;
- be organised, structured, and coordinated, with a clear session plan and labour allocation;
- feature champions identified for each program;
- collect data on the outcomes of the IGP.
- Child must be 3 years or older;
- Demonstrates a willingness to participate in activities;
- Attainment of parental consent.
- Mild temperament (no history of aggression towards others);
- Shows interest in participating in the planned activities;
- Has functional ability to follow simple instructions and be physically involved in the session activities;
- A willingness to interact with children;
- Good sound tolerance—staff were aware that some residents may not tolerate sensory stimulation from the children.
3.2.2. Orientation and Training
“For example, if the child and the elderly they just stare at each other. So I will be waiting … to see whether we can get things to be happen in an organic way whereas the teacher will be, boy why don’t you ask the uncle [the older adult] what he likes, what is the colour that he likes.”(Participant 1, nursing home staff)
“I don’t want them [other staff members] to help them with the children or elderly but it turn[s] out quite alright, some elderly would prefer the teacher to do, then they just sit passively and enjoy the session.”(Participant 1, nursing home staff)
3.2.3. Delivery and Execution
“… they [the elderly] don’t really speak English but both of the kids are very good with their English. They are terrible with their Mandarin. The elderly can only speak Mandarin and Hokkien [a Chinese dialect] so I have to speak English for instruction then after that, I will speak Mandarin or Mandarin then English … there are times that even the elderly don’t understand what’s the Mandarin term … then I have to explain in Hokkien.”(Participant 1, nursing home staff)
3.2.4. Impact Evaluation and Other Challenges
3.3. Evolution and Sustainability
3.3.1. Evolving Programs
“… the long-term goals move beyond just having meaningful interaction eh. It’s also really being concrete about what these meaningful interactions are. What is the, what are some of the benefits to the younger generation, how does IGP form a kind of therapy and care for both generations, how because now it is mainly through interaction…I feel it is a bit too general, too broad, and too fluffy. So, I will say the long-term vision is to see how to concretise some of these things, doesn’t need to be just one, but multiple areas. How it can also be semi-structured and can occur more organically.”(Participant 6, senior management)
3.3.2. Continued Delivery beyond COVID Disruptions
4. Discussion
4.1. Leadership Support to Build a Sense of Community
4.2. Applying Contact Theory
4.3. Relationships beyond Program Continuation
“… understanding the sustainability of IP [intergenerational programs] solely on the basis of securing continuation of the program is insufficient to capture sustainability fully … Therefore, one lesson to be learned is that IP sustainability should be dealt as a complex construct deserving a more elaborated and systematic approach.”(p. 11)
4.4. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Interview Questions
- Origins of IGP
- Where did the idea come from? How did they make it happen?
- Were you involved in the ideation of the IGP at SJH?
- If so, what was your involvement?
- Where did the idea come from?
- What were the responses of the various stakeholders? (Government, leadership board, staff, parents and families) What was some help/aid provided by these stakeholders?
- How was the process like to get the approval from the various organizations, e.g., Ministry of Education or Ministry of Health?
- What are the facilitators and challenges faced during the planning of IGP (e.g., financial issues, approval from board)?
- 2.
- Vision
- What is the vision for the IGP: short-term/long-term?
- How long do you foresee such a program to be carried out when this program was first introduced?
- 3.
- Session plans
- What are the key objectives that you introduced to your staff the IGP should strive to achieve before they plan for sessions?
- What are the key objectives/goals that you strive to achieve when planning for sessions?
- Were there specific goals for individual children and residents? Who creates the sessions plans—are they a combined (nursing home residents and children) or separate session plans? How are session plans developed—is there a framework the session plan follows?
- How are the staff trained to deliver the IGP?
- 4.
- Delivery of program
- What are the types of programs that have been done during this IGP?
- Do the sessions go according to the session plans? What are some common challenges faced?
- What are some of the changes made in response to these challenges?
- Was the budget sufficient to support the program? Was the number of staff adequate? Was the duration and number of sessions sufficient?
- How was the environment set up for each session?
- 5.
- Recruitment of participants
- What is the demographic of the residents/children?
- Were there any participants that have declined to participate in IGP? What are some reasons that participants do not want to participate?
- 6.
- Evaluation
- Was the IGP able to achieve its intended goals?
- How do you evaluate the effectiveness of the program? (teacher’s comments, observation)
- What is some feedback of the IGP from the participants and the other stakeholders?
- What benefits have you seen? Were they sustained in the long term?
- 7.
- Sustainability
- How has the current program evolved from the original?
- How has COVID-19 affected the program and the planning of future IGPs? What were some of the challenges faced? For example, were there measures that have to be followed during the program?
- What do you hope the IGP at SJH will achieve in the future?
- 8.
- Conclusion
- Is there anything else that you would like to comment on that I have not already asked you about?
Appendix B. Document List
No. | Document Title | Publication Date | Author | Summary of Document Type and Objective |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SJH IGP | 1 April 2020 | SJH IGP Workgroup | Definitions and criteria for SJH IGPs |
2 | One Tribe, One Space—The art of authentic inter-generational interactions | NIL | NIL | Presentation about IGP |
3 | IGP Workgroup Meeting 21 October 2020 | 21 October 2020 | SJH IGP Workgroup | Planning of 2021 IGPs |
4 | Minutes of IGP Workgroup Meeting on 8 April 2021 | 8 April 2021 | SJH IGP Workgroup | Reviewing of 2021 IGPs for Q3 and Q4 |
5 | Strategic planning-intergenerational programs 2020–2021 | NIL | NIL | Sharing of common definitions across all parties and the creation of macro IGP calendar |
6 | IGP calendar 2020 | NIL | NIL | Amendment of strategic planning and IGP calendar |
7 | Intergenerational Programs at SJH 2020–2021 | NIL | NIL | Breakdown of sharing of IGP strategic planning document with staff |
8 | The impact of an intergenerational program on the well-being of persons with dementia | NIL | Participant 8 | Poster to show benefits of intergenerational expressive arts program trialled at SJH |
9 | The impact of an intergenerational program on the well-being of persons with dementia | NIL | Participant 8 | Paper featuring the impact of an inter-generational expressive arts program designed for residents with dementia and children from ICC |
10 | Questionnaire | NIL | NIL | Rating of the child participants |
11 | Learning Objectives for children | NIL | NIL | List of learning objectives for children |
12 | Intergen phases 2018–2019 | 2019 | Participant 1 | Details of 3 phases of the art program in IGP |
13 | Inter-generational Art Experiential Program 19 September–28 November 2018 | 2018 | NIL | Includes the overview and objectives of the art program in IGP |
14 | Intergenerational Art 2nd run in Year 2018 (iGen Art) | 2018 | NIL | The objectives, session plans, and outcomes of each art program in IGP |
15 | iGen Expressive Art @ Level 2 | 2019 | Participant 1 | Session plan |
16 | Intergen comments from teachers | NIL | Teachers from ICC | Observation comparing pre- and post-session |
17 | Intergen pre and post feelings sample for session 1 | NIL | NIL | Observation on feelings |
18 | Uncles Aunties Feedback | NIL | NIL | Feedback from the residents |
19 | Pre and post feeling charts June–July | NIL | NIL | Feelings chart of the children in each session |
20 | Pre and post feeling charts June–July raw data | NIL | NIL | Subjective mood of the children |
21 | InterGen Phase 2: April–May 2019 | 2019 | Participant 1 | Objectives, outcomes, session structure, and plan of art therapy IGP |
22 | iGENEA: Intergen-Expressive Art Phase 2 April–May 2019 | 2019 | Participant 1 | Brief Objectives of phase 2 IGP |
23 | Feedback | 2019 | Participant 2 | Feedback from gym tonic staff to intern to improve on sessions |
24 | Intergenerational Exercise and Health Promotion Lesson Plan 1–6 + Sports Day | Nov 2019–Jan 2020 | Intern, reviewed by Participant 2 | Activity, objectives, structure of lessons |
25 | Project Grand Friends Run 2: Lost cultures | 2020 | NIL | Invitation to volunteers to join project on online calls with SJH residents |
References
- Aarons, Gregory A., Mark G. Ehrhart, and Lauren R. Farahnak. 2014. The implementation leadership scale (ILS): Development of a brief measure of unit level implementation leadership. Implementation Science 9: 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Azevedo, Cláudia, and Mariano Sánchez. 2019. Pathways to sustainable intergenerational programs: Lessons learned from Portugal. Sustainability 11: 6626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagnasco, Annamaria, Mark Hayter, Silvia Rossi, Milko P. Zanini, Ramona Pellegrini, Giuseppe Aleo, Gianluca Catania, and Loredana Sasso. 2020. Experiences of participating in intergenerational interventions in older people’s care settings: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing 76: 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bradbury, Mason, M. Nils Peterson, and Jianguo Liu. 2014. Long-term dynamics of household size and their environmental implications. Population and Environment 36: 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradford Dementia Group. 2008. The Bradford Well-Being Profile. Bradford: University of Bradford. [Google Scholar]
- Canedo-Garcia, Alejandro, Jesus-Nicasio Garcia-Sanchez, and Deilis-Ivonne Pacheco-Sanz. 2017. A systematic review of the effectiveness of intergenerational programs. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Courtin, Emilie, and Martin Knapp. 2017. Social isolation, loneliness and health in old age: A scoping review. Health & Social Care in the Community 25: 799–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazio, Sam, Douglas Pace, Janice Flinner, and Beth Kallmyer. 2018. The Fundamentals of Person-Centered Care for Individuals With Dementia. The Gerontologist 58: S10–S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feyh, Lauren, Jill E. Clutter, and Jessica L. Krok-Schoen. 2021. Get WISE (Wellness through Intergenerational Social Engagement): An Intergenerational Summer Program for Children and Long-term Care Residents. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 20: 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyer, A. 2001. Intergenerational Shared Site and Shared Resource Programs: Current Models. Washington, DC: Generations United. [Google Scholar]
- Gualano, Maria Rosaria, Gianluca Voglino, Fabrizio Bert, Robin Thomas, Elisa Camussi, and Roberta Siliquini. 2018. The impact of intergenerational programs on children and older adults: A review. International Psychogeriatrics 30: 451–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagestad, Gunhild O., and Peter Uhlenberg. 2005. The social separation of old and young: A root of ageism. Journal of Social Issues 61: 343–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfrich, Christian D., Bryan J. Weiner, Martha M. McKinney, and Lori Minasian. 2007. Determinants of Implementation Effectiveness. Medical Care Research and Review 64: 279–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jarrott, Shannon E., and Cynthia L. Smith. 2011. The Complement of Research and Theory in Practice: Contact Theory at Work in Nonfamilial Intergenerational Programs. The Gerontologist 51: 112–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jarrott, Shannon E., and Kathy Lee. 2022. Shared site intergenerational programs: A national profile. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarrott, Shannon E., and Kelly Bruno. 2007. Shared site intergenerational programs: A case study. Journal of Applied Gerontology 26: 239–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarrott, Shannon E., Matthew M. Morris, Audrey J. Burnett, Dana Stauffer, Andrew S. Stremmel, and Christina M. Gigliotti. 2011. Creating community capacity at a shared site intergenerational program: “Like a barefoot climb up a mountain”. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 9: 418–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarrott, Shannon E., Shelbie G. Turner, Jill Juris Naar, Lisa M. Juckett, and Rachel M. Scrivano. 2021a. Increasing the Power of Intergenerational Programs: Advancing an Evaluation Tool. Journal of Applied Gerontology 41: 763–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jarrott, Shannon E., Shelbie G. Turner, Jill Juris, Rachel M. Scrivano, and Raven H. Weaver. 2021b. Program Practices Predict Intergenerational Interaction Among Children and Adults. The Gerontologist 62: 385–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Korstjens, Irene, and Albine Moser. 2018. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice 24: 120–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Laevers, Ferdinand. 2005. Well-Being and Involvement in Care Settings: A Process-Oriented Self-Evaluation Instrument. Translated by Hannah Laevers. Belgium: Research Centre for Experiential Education, Leuven University. Available online: https://www.kindengezin.be/img/sics-ziko-manual.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2022).
- Leong, Kay See, Piyanee Klainin-Yobas, Sin Dee Fong, and Xi Vivien Wu. 2022. Older adults’ perspective of intergenerational programme at senior day care centre in Singapore: A descriptive qualitative study. Health & Social Care in the Community 30: e222–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, Cheryl Ching Ling, Caymania Lay Teng Low, Soo Boon Hia, Leng Leng Thang, and Ai Ling Thian. 2019. Generativity: Establishing and Nurturing the Next Generation. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 17: 368–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, Vivian W. Q., and Annie A. N. Dai. 2017. A review of nonfamilial intergenerational programs on changing age stereotypes and well-being in East Asia. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 15: 143–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Health. 2016. “I Feel Young in My Singapore” Action Plan for Successful Ageing. Available online: https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider3/action-plan/action-plan.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2022).
- Ministry of Social and Family Development, Republic of Singapore. 2022. Ageing Families in Singapore, 2010–2020. Insight Series Paper 01/2022. Available online: https://www.msf.gov.sg/research-and-data/Research-and-Data-Series/Documents/Ageing_Families_in_Singapore_2010-2020.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2022).
- Ng, Bee Chin, and Francesco Cavallaro. 2021. Where Have All My Languages Gone? Aging and the Changing Multilingual Linguistic Ecology. In Multilingualism across the Lifespan. London: Routledge, pp. 147–68. [Google Scholar]
- Noble, Helen, and Roberta Heale. 2019. Triangulation in research, with examples. Evidence-Based Nursing 22: 67–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nowell, Lorelli S., Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16: 1609406917733847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, Ruth, Nicole Ee, Stephanie A. Ward, Gail Kenning, Katrina Radford, Micah Goldwater, Hiroko H. Dodge, Ebony Lewis, Ying Xu, and George Kudrna. 2021. Intergenerational Programmes bringing together community dwelling non-familial older adults and children: A Systematic Review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 94: 104356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pettigrew, Thomas F. 2008. Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32: 187–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- QSR International Pty Ltd. 2022. NVivo (released in January 2022). Available online: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home (accessed on 10 July 2022).
- Radford, Katrina, Janna Anneke Fitzgerald, Nerina Vecchio, Jennifer Cartmel, Neil Harris, and Xanthe Golenko. 2019. Intergenerational Care Project Research Report. Brisbane: Griffith University. [Google Scholar]
- Rogerson, Andrew, and Simon Stacey. 2018. Successful ageing in Singapore. Geriatrics 3: 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singapore Department of Statistics. 2021a. Citizen Population by Broad Age Bands. Last updated September 2021. Available online: https://www.population.gov.sg/files/media-centre/publications/Population-in-brief-2021.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2022).
- Singapore Department of Statistics. 2021b. Old Age Support Ratio. Last updated 28 September 2021. Available online: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/old-age-support-ratio (accessed on 30 July 2022).
- Singapore Department of Statistics. 2021c. Census of Population 2020 Statistical Release 1: Demographic Characteristics, Education, Language and Religion. Available online: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/reference/cop2020/cop2020-sr1 (accessed on 30 July 2022).
- Steward, Andrew, Leslie Hasche, Jennifer C. Greenfield, M. Pilar Ingle, Carson De Fries, Rachel Fix, Jessica King McLaughlin, Matthew Schilz, Michaela Hennig, and Devyn Bonatus. 2021. A review of participant, agency, and community outcomes of non-familial intergenerational PROGRAMS. Journal of Social Work. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Chorh Chuan, Carolyn S. P. Lam, David B. Matchar, Yoong Kang Zee, and John E. L. Wong. 2021. Singapore’s health-care system: Key features, challenges, and shifts. The Lancet 398: 1091–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, Jun Hao Sherman, and Bee Chin Ng. 2010. Three generations under one roof: A study of the influence of the presence of grandparents on language shift, identity and attitudes. Publié dans Revue Tranel (Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique) 52: 69–92. [Google Scholar]
- Thang, Leng, Matthew S. Kaplan, and Nancy Z. Henkin. 2003. Intergenerational Programming in Asia. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 1: 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2019. World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights: (ST/ESA/SER.A/430). Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WorldPopulationAgeing2019-Highlights.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2022).
- Wong, Eliza L. Y., Janice Y. C. Lau, and Eng-Kiong Yeoh. 2018. Thinking intergenerationally: Intergenerational solidarity, health and active aging in Hong Kong. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 16: 478–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Designations and Number of Participants | Years of Working Experience | Additional Roles |
---|---|---|---|
Nursing Home Staff | Art Therapist (1), Gym Tonic Instructor (1), Nurses (6) | 1–18 years | |
Senior Management | Community Partnership Executives (2), Principal of ICC (1), Head of Allied Health Services (1) | 2–8 years | IGP Workgroup |
Teachers of ICC | Chinese Teacher (1), Senior Teacher (1) | 3 years |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yeh, I.-L.; Wong, S.Y.X.; Safaruan, L.S.B.; Kang, Y.Q.; Wong, M.S.T.; Wilson, I.M. Development and Implementation of an Intergenerational Bonding Program in a Co-Located Model: A Case Study in Singapore. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11120557
Yeh I-L, Wong SYX, Safaruan LSB, Kang YQ, Wong MST, Wilson IM. Development and Implementation of an Intergenerational Bonding Program in a Co-Located Model: A Case Study in Singapore. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(12):557. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11120557
Chicago/Turabian StyleYeh, I-Ling, Sebastian Ye Xun Wong, Lydia Safrina Binte Safaruan, Yuan Qi Kang, May S. T. Wong, and Ingrid M. Wilson. 2022. "Development and Implementation of an Intergenerational Bonding Program in a Co-Located Model: A Case Study in Singapore" Social Sciences 11, no. 12: 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11120557
APA StyleYeh, I. -L., Wong, S. Y. X., Safaruan, L. S. B., Kang, Y. Q., Wong, M. S. T., & Wilson, I. M. (2022). Development and Implementation of an Intergenerational Bonding Program in a Co-Located Model: A Case Study in Singapore. Social Sciences, 11(12), 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11120557