BMC geriatrics · 2026
Mutual aid among older residents in two socially different districts of a rural municipality in Japan: a comparative qualitative study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ohno Yoshiko, Tane Eriko, Ishida Yukari, Maeda Keiko, Takayama Eriko, Yanokuchi Miku, Shiroma Yu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mutual aid among older residents is increasingly important in ageing communities in Japan. However, little is known about how mutual aid is actually formed and reconfigured across socially different districts within the same municipality.
METHODS: This comparative qualitative study analysed semi-structured interviews with 11 community-dwelling older residents aged 77-90 years in one rural Japanese municipality (fishing district, n = 6; in-migrant "I-turn" district, n = 5). Seven interview sessions were conducted across the two districts, totalling 597 min. The primary analysis used Kuckartz-based qualitative text analysis. The Trajectory Equifinality Approach / Trajectory Equifinality Modeling (TEA/TEM) was then used as a secondary interpretive framework to reinterpret how mutual aid changed over irreversible time.
RESULTS: Four synthesized comparative themes were identified. First, in the fishing district, mutual aid was supported by long-term co-residence, neighbours' routine awareness of doors, curtains, and other daily signs, neighbourly access to homes when needed, and an expectation that help would be reciprocated over time. Second, in the I-turn district, mutual aid was more often built intentionally through participation in local activities, transport arrangements, and selectively cultivated friendships after migration. Third, across both districts, ageing and health events shifted residents between providing help and receiving help. Fourth, mutual aid had clear relational boundaries: not all residents were equally involved in neighbourhood activities or ties, and helping coexisted with restraint, privacy/non-intrusion, and family-first norms. Mutual aid was experienced not as a fixed role but as a shifting position between providing and receiving help over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Mutual aid among older residents was neither uniform across districts nor fixed over time. Rather, it was shaped by district-specific relational infrastructures and reconfigured through age-related changes in health, mobility, and everyday routines. Community interventions should therefore be tailored to the relational infrastructure already present in each district and should support modest, repeatable opportunities for reciprocal contact and gentle monitoring.
METHODS: This comparative qualitative study analysed semi-structured interviews with 11 community-dwelling older residents aged 77-90 years in one rural Japanese municipality (fishing district, n = 6; in-migrant "I-turn" district, n = 5). Seven interview sessions were conducted across the two districts, totalling 597 min. The primary analysis used Kuckartz-based qualitative text analysis. The Trajectory Equifinality Approach / Trajectory Equifinality Modeling (TEA/TEM) was then used as a secondary interpretive framework to reinterpret how mutual aid changed over irreversible time.
RESULTS: Four synthesized comparative themes were identified. First, in the fishing district, mutual aid was supported by long-term co-residence, neighbours' routine awareness of doors, curtains, and other daily signs, neighbourly access to homes when needed, and an expectation that help would be reciprocated over time. Second, in the I-turn district, mutual aid was more often built intentionally through participation in local activities, transport arrangements, and selectively cultivated friendships after migration. Third, across both districts, ageing and health events shifted residents between providing help and receiving help. Fourth, mutual aid had clear relational boundaries: not all residents were equally involved in neighbourhood activities or ties, and helping coexisted with restraint, privacy/non-intrusion, and family-first norms. Mutual aid was experienced not as a fixed role but as a shifting position between providing and receiving help over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Mutual aid among older residents was neither uniform across districts nor fixed over time. Rather, it was shaped by district-specific relational infrastructures and reconfigured through age-related changes in health, mobility, and everyday routines. Community interventions should therefore be tailored to the relational infrastructure already present in each district and should support modest, repeatable opportunities for reciprocal contact and gentle monitoring.