Education and Social Relationships between Museums and Older People: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT

Rapidly ageing population increases the demand for activities with learning and social stimulation. Museums are well placed to provide such a function. Objective: How and in what form are museums engaging with older populations. The review will focus on three aspects: (1) Identifying the frameworks and tools being used by and in museums with older people. (2) Assess variables used in research and in areas that supports knowledge creation. (3) Identify evidence in relation to the interactions between museums and older audiences. A review of 8 databases and 2 university repositories (English and Portuguese language). The search retrieved 810 potential sources (2002-2020), 39 sources met the inclusion criteria. They focused on the educational aspects of museums and were produced by disciplines like psychology and gerontology, museology, arts and education. Museums play an important role on health (emphasis on psychological and physical wellbeing), socialization (discussing stereotypes, reducing isolation, redefining social roles), socioeconomic aspects (with local focus on services, partnerships) and on creative aging (promoting non-formal education with lifelong learning at different levels).

KEYWORDS:
Ageing; Audience engagement; Lifelong learning; Museum Studies; Human Development; Older populations

RESUMO

O rápido envelhecimento da população aumenta a demanda por atividades com aprendizagem e estimulação social para público com 60 e mais anos. Os museus estão bem posicionados para oferecer tal função. Objetivo: como e de que forma os museus se relacionam com as populações mais velhas. A revisão enfoca os seguintes aspectos: Identificar metodologias usadas por e nos museus para atender pessoas idosas. Variáveis utilizadas por pesquisas e áreas que produzem evidências. Identificar evidências na literatura sobre as relações entre museus e públicos mais velhos. A revisão escopo em 8 bases de dados e 2 repositórios universitários (língua inglesa e portuguesa). A busca identificou 810 fontes potenciais de pesquisa (2002-2020), 39 fontes atenderam aos critérios de inclusão. As publicações se concentraram nos aspectos educacionais dos museus e foram produzidos por disciplinas como psicologia e gerontologia, museologia, artes e educação. Os museus desempenham um papel importante com estudos que impactam a saúde (ênfase no bem-estar psicológico e físico), socialização (discutir estereótipos, reduzir o isolamento, redefinir papéis sociais), aspectos socioeconômicos (com foco local em serviços, parcerias) e no envelhecimento criativo (promover a educação não formal com aprendizagem ao longo da vida em diferentes níveis).

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Desenvolvimento humano; Envelhecimento; Educação ao longo da vida; Estudos de museus; Idoso

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

The rapid aging of the population is accompanied by an increase in demand for sociocultural activities. Museums, as unique spaces for promoting socialization, inclusion⁴ lifelong learning⁵ and well-being despite some disease experience,⁶ can thrive through interaction with older audiences. Living longer opens up new opportunities: as part of the process of population active aging,⁷ the challenges arising from the new demographic scenario⁸ must be addressed.

Within musealization, a process that means working with collections but also heritage and society, there is the possibility of engagement with the community and of partnerships between diverse older audiences and a range of museum activities.⁹ Engagement in socio educational activities and museum visits can represent positive outcomes for active participative aging if the environment allows these opportunities to be nurtured and can flourish.

It is important to understand context dimensions of museums to promote docility/proactivity in cultural spaces to maintain or extend physical environment and also sense of belonging, social possibilities, security, socioeconomic accessibility and technological dimensions,¹⁰ creating more age-friendly spaces.¹¹

The stance of social museology is important, based on guidelines which have evolved since the 1970s. In a recent synthesis, museums seek to define themselves as:

democratizing, inclusive and polyphonic spaces, oriented for critical dialogue about the past and future, […], guaranteeing equal rights and access to heritage for all people […] they are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.¹²

The importance of wellbeing, quality of life and self-esteem are variables addressed by psychology and gerontology and can be explored by areas that bring together interdisciplinary knowledge like museology. Generativity¹³ is a concept involving the theory of lifespan with respect to lifelong human development¹⁴ much more than a stage it is relevant refer the legacy and contributions to future generations, as component of personality that can influence cultural postures, intergenerational contacts and adaptation thought lifelong learning.¹⁵

Museum relationships allow learning processes to be devised within non-formal education¹⁶ or in broader ways through generic learning.¹⁷ Understanding the interaction between museums and older audiences allows interdisciplinary insights to be gained which can render museum practices friendlier¹⁸ and accessible for all ages.

Exploratory studies about museum programs and activities for older audiences in Latin America also look about these interactions. For example, in Mexico the access and use of museums with social determinant variables, like rural or urban origin, but also personal determinants like satisfaction results, and physical environment supporting active ageing was analyzed¹⁹ and in Brazil where conducted studies to understand institutional proposals to engage with people aged over 60 in this vast geographic region and across multiple museum settings.²⁰

Population data for Brazil shows the country has an estimated more than 30 million people aged 60 or older (almost 15% of total population).²¹ Projections show that, by 2030, older adults will outnumber children and adolescents aged 0-14 by 2.28 million and by 2050, over 60s will represent around 30% of the overall population.²²

The rise in the number of proposed interventions for older audiences over the past decade justifies a review of the literature on evaluation programs or actions that have engaged older audiences. A seminal Australian study started to look at this with socio demographic interest; leisure; learning interest; internet access and usage to understand older audience and possibilities that could be developed²³ after these other countries developed studies with this same profile of audiences, for example Portugal,²⁴ USA.²⁵

This review plots the current evidence and identifies gaps and state of the field. We have included any evaluations that might inform the evidence base as these include actions, activities, products and services, methods, research instruments and strategies as part of museography or museum practice. We included this from searching the grey literature often produced by museum professionals and housed in digital repositories.²⁶ With research conducted with museum studies they look to communicate the relevance of actions and outcomes, becomes the focus of many museum studies is about interconnecting the encompassing administration, assessment and part of curatorial process (acquisition, safekeeping and communication).²⁷

A study²⁸ extended beyond theories of education in museums and was a starting point that indicates that it allows us to connect other areas that deal with potential older audiences. This includes domains of psychology and educational gerontology,²⁹ environmental studies.³⁰ The interdisciplinarity found in these studies influenced the need for a broader review of the literature that explores museum as educational and socio-cultural spaces.

This review helps to inform policy makers, museums and curators along with others involved in this growing sector to consider aspects that can suggest how best to engage older audiences (those over 60) as well as the curators, museum staff and policy makers who offer and operate museum services.

METHODS

Conducting the review

The present review was conducted according to the scoping review methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and employed the PRISMA-ScR checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews). Systematic reviews based on the PRISMA-ScR help systematize scoping analyses, a useful approach for answering broader questions, such as that explored in the present review: “How and in what form are museums engaging with older populations”? The approach seeks to map evidence in the literature on the topic and locate knowledge gaps and innovative approaches being used within a given discipline. This is conducted to identify sources and types of evidence addressing the issue, cataloguing the knowledge in political and practical terms.³¹ Such reviews allow the inclusion of a body of quantitative and qualitative literature³² and help map where the research being undertaken and which disciplines are conducting the work.³³

In accordance with the review procedure adopted, the search was based on a protocol research applying the study question, search strategy, article selection and extraction of data reported in available published literature.³⁴

Review question and objectives

Our review questions are:

1. How and in what form are museums engaging with older populations?

2. To identify evidence on interactions between museums and older audiences (aged over 60) either within the museum or in a community engagement setting internationally.

The review will focus on the following aspects:

Identifying the frameworks and tools being used by and in museums with older people

1. Identifying the characteristics or variables used by museums

2. Mapping work conducted with older adults and identifying which disciplines are engaged in conducting research.

Search strategy

We conducted searches on 8 databases including VHL - Virtual Health Library; Embase; Scopus; Web of Science; Scielo; Lilacs; Ageline and APA PsycInfo. We were aware that in many countries work may be conducted in this arena but not published in academic journals so academic databases (IBICT and RCAAP) for Masters and Doctoral repositories (Brazilian and Portuguese) museum studies were included so as to include studies in Portuguese or English from 2002 to May 2020.

The combined search terms in both English and Portuguese included: (1) museu AND idoso (Brazilian Portuguese); (2) museu AND senior (Continental Portuguese); and (3) museum AND older people AND elderly AND aged. The preliminary work was commenced in 2019 and revised in May 2020. The review dates are online with the seminal work conducted in 2002, Energised, Engaged, Everywhere: Older Australians and Museums conducted in Australia by Kelly, Savage, Landman e Tonkin (2002) who presented their work on people with 65 years and museums with a mixed analysis of cultural habits, internet access, leisure participation and interviews about perceptions in museums activities and interests.

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Population

The area of interest was older populations, although chronological age did not serve as an exclusion criterion in our searches. This is because the chronical definition of age varies from country to country. There is also no consensus on the chronological age that indicates elderly status. Many studies adopt a cut-off of 50 or over, while others use 65 years of age. Consequently, older audiences comprise a wide array of individuals, where this can be discussed according to the chronological contexts adopted by different countries. Therefore, chronological age cut-off was not a selection criterion in the search for publications, given this limit is defined according to context. The age of 60 or over is a reference for classifying older adults in countries like Brazil, as stipulated by the World Health Organization (WHO) for developing or emerging countries.³⁵ This chronological age, however, may differ in international studies, where 65 years is more commonly used as the cut-off in Europe. Some studies justify a younger age because citizens accept early retirement and have incentives to join older groups.³⁶ Another important factor is what a population cut-off can represent within a population in general, for example, 25% of the population of Europe is over 55.³⁷ Thus, chronological cut-off age was not a criteria for exclusion or inclusion of the studies selected, bearing in mind that this concept serves merely as a reference,³⁸ with more weight given to the complex construction of age, whose “categorization is subject to change, as society and this group adapt according to the practical application of norms and actual experience, and not stereotyped over time”.³⁹ Concerning gender, the samples of the studies reviewed comprised both men and women. Studies that considered or included one gender were still included as this was not a gendered focused review.

Concept

Relationships with older audiences supported by the areas in focus of museum studies, encompassing management, safeguard and communication.

Context

This review included studies which involved older people and established a relationship with museums as lifelong learning, cultural or social environments conducted within different settings (community, hospitals, long-term care facilities, and autonomous visitors) in literature with English or Portuguese language.

Study types

This review encompassed systematic reviews and other observational (cross-sectional and cohort), interventional (non-randomized and randomized controlled trials) empirical studies including qualitative and mixed methods studies. Reports, discussion documents and expert opinions were not included.

ARTICLE SELECTION PROCESS

Selection process

The search process was performed in two stages. First, a general survey of articles matching descriptors and respective reading of titles and abstract was carried out by 2 reviewers (AO and CM) independently. The assessment of each article was conducted by two reviewers (AO and CM) with an agreed criterion and with regular interactions and use of a spreadsheet to capture any queries or disagreements. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria and focusing on programs implemented by or in museums involving older audiences were selected (see ^{Appendix A}).

The search strategy and process of selecting eligible articles employed is depicted in the Prisma-ScR diagram of Figure 1 - Diagram PRISMA - ScR. Search strategy and studies selection process.

Figure 1
Diagram PRISMA - ScR. Search strategy and studies selection process.

Data presentation

A specific chart was devised for this review, recording the following bibliographic details: article title, authors, year of publication, country, general or specific audience (e.g. in community, hospital, primary care, long-term care settings, individuals with dementia, cancer, pain etc.), museum area, study objectives, all study types (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), knowledge area, study design, museum and audience sample (size and age), research setting (local, regional, national, transnational) and reported results. A data presentation table was produced, based on the extracted data, grouped according to publication year and aspects like identifying the frameworks and tools being used by and in museums with older people.

Studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved in full and their details placed into ^{Appendix A} of the present article. References were imported into the Endnote Web library database and are available in the ^Appendix containing the research material.

FINDINGS

This review investigated how museums engage with older audiences, searching for all related articles published during the period spanning from 2002 to May 2020. A total of 39 articles met the inclusion criteria and were published from 2010 onwards, of which 85% were published between 2014-2019 demonstrating the growing interest in this area.

In reviewing the 39 articles identified key interests of what type of engagement and geographic location, methodologies applied and the reported relationship and interactions between museums and older adults.

Figure 2
Findings presentation.

Only two English-speaking countries produced articles that met our inclusion criteria (n=22), with the majority conducted in the UK (13) and the USA (9). A high number of studies were carried out in Brazil (6) and Portugal (5) and a further 6 from European countries, Germany (1), Denmark (1), Spain (1), Finland (1), Holland (1) and Sweden (1).

In terms of participant characteristics across the 39 included studies, there was a wide variance in what was classed as an older audience.

And 18 studies drew on samples from the general population of older adults involved with proposals of museums. Diverse context sample characteristics are relevant as they demonstrate the diversity of the target population. Of the studies 13 focused on older adults with different types of dementia, while 3 publications were conducted with residents in long-term care facilities.⁴⁰ Other studies focused on samples of individuals from day-care centers,⁴¹ older adults as volunteers in museum activities,⁴² participants with low education,⁴³ retired/pensioners⁴⁴ and patients receiving treatment for cancer⁴⁵ or chronic pain.⁴⁶ It is difficult to report the overall age demographic of the included studies as only 18 of the 39 reported this so no conclusions can be drawn.

Figure 3
Categories of audience samples context.

Over half of the 39 studies (54%) involved only one museum setting with the remainder exploring 2 to 9 sites (n=11), one study had over 10 museums,⁴⁷ whilst another study recruited and engaged with over 100 museums in a literature review of programs implemented based in museum programs presented by museum professionals.⁴⁸ In our review, we included systematic reviews in order to compile the latest evidence and to provide a map of the work undertaken in this sector.

Figure 4
Sample number of museums.

In terms of geographical spread, the location of museums across the 39 sources varied. Twenty-five studies took place in one location, eight had more than one City location and covered a region, and three conducted exploratory studies in a national panorama in UK, Spain and Brazil.⁴⁹ A further three developed research that had an international dimension focusing on productions or programs for older people in more than one country which was an international panorama using digital resources in museum sites.⁵⁰

Figure 5
Research context geographic categories.

The number of participants also the study location were not uniformly included in the 39 included studies these characteristics were more clear in the mixed methods studies and in the systematic review about dementia.⁵¹

Across the 39 articles a range of population/audience samples were: four studies with less than 10 individuals are qualitative research.⁵²

Regarding sample size: 16 publications contain samples involving 11 and 50 individuals; five contain studies with 51 and 100 individuals;⁵³ three articles involved samples of 100 individuals to 500.⁵⁴

One article drew on the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a seminal interdisciplinary study in gerontology and based on a large database sample of over 3400 individuals and involving museums as part of cultural engagement.⁵⁵

Figure 6
Audience sample size.

The review includes 10 articles that did articles did not provide any demographic sample details (some because are literature or program reviews).

The 39 included articles focused on museum studies as a knowledge area that deals with heritage, territory and society looking at all topics areas, but also in practices that occur in museum institutions⁵⁶ helping to show which sectors within the institutions engage with older audiences. Figure 2 provides an overview of the different aspects of a museum engaged with older audiences in different museum studies areas.

Figure 7
Museum studies areas.

Museum practice areas summarizes the different areas identified in these 3 boxes: museum management (administration), safeguarding (conservation, documentation) and communication (exhibitions, educational work, publications). In the review, the studies were grouped identifying which were produced with this focus.

All the included studies (n=39) related broadly to differing aspects of communication; exhibitions, educational programs, publications with 22 offering an educational offering with older audiences such as guided visits, artistic activities, conversation circles, analysis of works or objects, testimonials and games.

The key focus for the literature appears to be in the area of dementia within older populations. Fourteen articles report interventions across seven countries working in this area.⁵⁷ Of these, two based in the UK, had an art gallery-based intervention for older people with dementia and their cares.⁵⁸ A further topic explored was that of health and well-being. For example, the study by Thomson et al. (2012) with hospitalized cancer patients discussing museum objects with a facilitator on a one-to-one bedside approach. Another UK study⁵⁹ used museum objects handling sessions to achieve clinical evaluation in long term care house and hospitals.

Eight articles approach to general audience of older populations interacting with the education sector: two are publications from the same study in seven UK museums about psychological well-being;⁶⁰ one about education in community as a successful aging strategy;⁶¹ two about art-education programs in museums;⁶² two articles about education programs review⁶³ and one about retirement people.⁶⁴

Whilst nine focused on double relations between exhibitions but also what would be classified as educational activities: about mediations of exhibition and activities for older adults with lower education level;⁶⁵ also one focused in people that live in long term care house;⁶⁶ understanding the involvement of general older audiences with both exhibitions and educational programs in border approaches,⁶⁷ a comparation of presential activities with digital approaches,⁶⁸ and a systematic review focus on both museums communications ways and dementia.⁶⁹ Another four studies analyzed the audience within exhibitions only.⁷⁰

Studies were also found with a focus on museum management and administration issues for engaging with older audiences. For example, discussing discounts structures,⁷¹ visitation strategies and habits,⁷² socio economic value of engaging with older adults as volunteers⁷³ and one study explored participation of heritage preservation and communication.⁷⁴

Discipline and Methodologies

The discipline areas that undertook analyses on the relationship of older adults with museums was psychology plus gerontology (14), museum studies including museum management (7), art together with health sciences and occupational therapy (5), interdisciplinary studies (5), followed by education (3) as long-standing partners of museums research. Other knowledge areas which featured in the review were social sciences (2), language (1), scientific publications (1) and information technology (1).

Studies from very different areas used mixed method or multimethod research: 18 articles were based on semi-structured interviews, questionnaires individually or via focus groups encompassing not only visitors but also museum professionals or caregivers, using content analysis as the data analysis method. Participatory or field ethnographic research was cited as the approach used in five publications normally use in qualitative research. 7 publications were literature reviews on museum interventions programs with older adults important to understand the panorama of museum actions with older adults’ audience.

Comparative focus is perceived in six articles reported pre-and post-intervention assessments, while another two contained control groups. Previously validated scales and instruments were employed in the studies of 14 publications.

Only one study used a pre-existing database (ELSA- English Longitudinal Study of Ageing), whereas one study failed to report the assessment technique used.

Of the 39 included articles close to half were qualitative in design (18), a further 14 articles used a mixed methods approach and 7 were purely quantitative with different measures instruments and scales used like PANAS (Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale) and VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) and a scale developed for museum approaches Museum Wellbeing Measure for Older Adults scale (MWM-OA).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This review shows relationships between populations with the museum sector is stimulated by an educational function in the broadest sense. Museums have traditionally greater engagement with a range of visitors with evidence for beneficial outcomes that we categorize in terms of socialization, wellbeing, learning and cognitive preservation.

The recent interest in how the relationship between museums and older adults is established, results in existing literature that appears promising for communities and museums as the review indicates. A rise in visitor numbers is expected, driven by the demographic expansion and increased demand for sociocultural activities, while various disciplines promote studies analyzing how this engagement promotes benefits in diverse audiences of older adults.

This scoping review provides a summary of evidence and catalogues the literature on study’s emphasis on assessment instruments employed and types of studies and variables, allowed the definition of categories for conducting receptive studies, whilst mapping techniques and study sources used. Regarding studies design and instruments we point out that should be noted only one included study used several instruments. All choices used should be pondered for future research conducted as possible instruments.

Different profiles and subgroups of older adults were analyzed by the studies, showing that museum engagement can lead to improvements for individuals as well as society, as advocated by guidelines of social museology, all museums actuate in society but since the second half of 20st century the debate becomes important because some museums actions are committed with etic issues, especially with scientific and politic dimensions with specific groups.⁷⁵

In the articles included, older populations were classed as one group regardless of age or health status but in some cases this was considered in the different categories of interaction, interests or specific health characteristics (e.g. residing in long-term care facility or attending day centers, pensioners, individuals seeking volunteer activities or patients with a particular clinical condition). Gerontology supports the relationships with these audiences through both theory and practice in a diverse way to establish closer outcomes.

Analysis of the reported findings from the 39 included articles indicates that socialization was the most frequently reported outcome (21 studies), through reducing isolation/withdrawal, expanding social networks and increasing social inclusion. The wellbeing variable was commonly cited (15 studies) and found to be associated with the term’s “satisfaction” and “improved mood”.⁷⁶ The opportunity to learn regardless of age was an aim of 12 studies, either as a lifelong learning strategy, occupation or as a way of increasing cultural capital (with references to artistic, digital and attitude capital), and not just with respect to visitors, but also encompassing professional teams and companions. Cognitive preservation was cited by nine studies, quality of life by four, increased self-esteem was an outcome in three studies, while the generativity concept was addressed in three publications. Lastly, 64% of the studies reported outcomes for two or more variables in the results. This leads us to understand or believe that positive psychological variables are fund in these relation.

Descriptive and experimental studies are of special relevance when mixed and quantitative measurements can be made that justify the impacts and investments. Well received by academia and policy makers, these methods of analysis (54% of studies) proved a common alternative to qualitative studies (46% of publications). The more quantitative analysis and research techniques elected can be complementary depending on objectives and settings. Although qualitative studies are more traditionally used, the use of instruments such as closed-ended type questionnaires and scales can enable this type of analysis.

The studies included in this scoping review allowed identification of four areas impacted when museums promote a process of relationship as friendly spaces for all ages which favor active aging.

The impacts of the relationships of museums with older adults interact to promote quality of life in individuals and the community, permeating several dimensions as depicted in Figure 3 - Impacts according to results found in studies.

Figure 8
Impacts found in studies. Individual impacts a.) / b.) and social impacts c.) / d.).

On a more individual level, the importance of the health aspect is evident a.) cognitive;⁷⁷ motor and communication stimulation, psychological⁷⁸ and physical wellbeing; particularly self-confidence and self-esteem.⁷⁹ These spaces enable coping strategies for diseases through focus on the person as opposed to their clinical status bringing benefits.⁸⁰

For the dimension of socioeconomic impact on the community c.) museum spaces contribute to the local economy, providing goods, services and tourism, but can also lead to public/private partnerships.⁸¹ Economic sustainability is achieved through jobs or activities⁸² and salaries or economic possibilities.⁸³

More visible in nature, the relationship in terms of d.) socialization/inclusion can reduce isolation,⁸⁴ promote spaces for interaction and intergenerational contact and with peers,⁸⁵ redefine social roles,⁸⁶ sharing knowledge and experiences,⁸⁷ revealing application of the generativity concept and discussion of stereotypes and prejudice, cohesion and respect.⁸⁸

Lastly, through the tradition of studies on the link between museums and education, the relationship in the elderly population can support creative aging b.) through life-long learning in different styles and levels,⁸⁹ exploiting on-line and on-site environments,⁹⁰ new skills, stimulus of the imagination, creativity,⁹¹ inspiration, amazement and enjoyment.⁹²

The review supports the devising of research instruments to characterize older people as a museum audience visiting or taking part in museum activities, to yield data to help address the lack of audience and receptive studies, much needed by the cultural and museum studies sector in Brazil.

Conclusion

How and in what form museums are engaging with older populations could be identified with evidence in the studies that reveal different types of interactions between museums and older audiences either within the museum or in a community engagement setting internationally.

This review identifies relationships and the types of work conducted in this important area as outlined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018).

The review enables a broader comprehension of the work conducted in this area and identifies the type of initiatives and gaps that can be plugged in this area. Older populations are set to grow and with a global ageing population predicted having the foresight to consider the beneficial effects to older populations can only aid the health and well-being of society.

In Brazil, the triangular shape of the pyramid population, with a broad base, has given way to a typical age pyramid of an aging population, with a reduction in the relative participation of children and young people and the proportional increase in adults and elderly people. Brazil is going through a period of accelerated demographic aging, with important implications for individuals, families and society.

The population segment that increases the most in the Brazilian population is that of elderly, with growth rates of more than 4% per year in the period from 2012 to 2022. Population aged 60 years and over increases from 14.2 million in 2000 to 19.6 million in 2010, expected to reach 41.5 million in 2030 and 73.5 million in 2060.⁹³

The country has a predicted ageing population of 30% of people of 60 and over in 2050.⁹⁴ This review has identified a lack of work conducted in Brazil or with these older populations. In a country that would have the 6^th largest older population in the World⁹⁵ there is much scope for the sector to develop a rigorous program of activities which not only stimulate older populations but engage with a wider audience long term.

Educational and social relationship between museums and older people should focus on proposals for potential of engagement also inclusion and participation to benefit the community and individuals. Findings show different approaches of interaction with the diversity of older audiences with different strategies in museum actions attending different levels of interests, autonomy, health, socio economic contexts. Mirroring innovative attitudes found in the international literature⁹⁶ could prove a winning formula for museums. There are museums already producing research to evaluate their programs including work and practices with publications in grey literature.⁹⁷

This review is timely due to the changing demographic nature of populations in around the World. This is pertinent as many museums are seeing a decline in younger populations visiting museums except for purely educational purposes such as school visits.

The results of this review can bring information for policy makers, museums professionals that still don’t work with older audiences but also involve this sector to consider aspects that can suggest how can best engage older people with museum services as possibilities of positive individual and social impacts.

In Latin America the researchers should look to understand who the older audiences and the non-visitors 60+ are to develop new approaches and look for findings of impacts after these relationships.

Polyphonic dialogues in museum, listening and engage different types of audiences and social identities can foster intergenerational activities and expand understanding of the world about the past, but also positively impact the future of generations of all ages and social diversity.

REFERENCES

BOOKS, ARTICLES AND THESES

• ALELIS, Genevieve; BOBROWICZ, Ania; ANG, Chee Siang. Comparison of engagement and emotional responses of older and younger adults interacting with 3D cultural heritage artefacts on personal devices. Behaviour & Information Technology, London, v. 34, n. 11, p. 01-17, 2015.
• ANDERS, Erica et al. Heritage in Health: A Guide to Using Museum Colletions in Hospitals and Other Healthcare Settings. London: UCL, 2012.
• ANTUNES, Maria Conceição; JESUS, Carla Susana. O museu como contexto de educação comunitária: um projeto de promoção do envelhecimento bem-sucedido. Estudos Interdisciplinares sobre o Envelhecimento, Porto Alegre, v. 23, n. 1, p. 09-26, 2018.
• ARAUJO, Olga Susana. Os idosos como público de museus. 2016. Dissertação (Mestrado em museologia). - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2016.
• ARAUJO, Olga Susana; HINSLIFF-SMITH, Kathryn; CACHIONI, Meire. Education and the Relationships Between Museums and Older Audiences: A Scoping Review Protocol. International Journal of Educational Research, UK, v. 102 -101591, 2020.
• ARKSEY, Hilary; O’MALLEY, Lisa. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, York, v. 8, n. 1, p. 19-32, 2005.
• ARNOTT, Robert et al. Museums on Prescription: A Guide to Working with Older People. In: HRA COUNCIL (Ed.). Report. London: HRA Council, 2018. v. 2, p. 24.
• BALTES, Paul. Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, Washington. 32(5), p. 611-626, 1987.
• BELVER, Manuel. H. et al. Art Museums as a Source of Well-being for People with Dementia: An Experience in the Prado Museum. Arts & Health, London, v. 10, n. 3, p. 213-226, 2018.
• BENITEZ, Antonio. The Impact of the Ageing Population on Museum Audiences: Challenges and Opportunities for Museums. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, Chicago, v. 5, n. 01, p. 1-9, 2013.
• BENNINGTON, Rose et al. Art Therapy in Art Museums: Promoting Social Connectedness and Psychological Well-being of Older Adults. Arts in Psychotherapy, Cambridge, v. 49, p. 34-43, 2016.
• CACHIONI, Meire et al. Motivational Factors and Predictors for Attending Continuing Education Program for Older Adults, Educational Gerontology, Philadelphia, v. 40, n. 8, p. 40-48, 2014.
• CACHOEIRA, Rosilane Damazio. Ações educativas do museu ao ar livre Princesa Isabel: visibilidade e valorização da memória do idoso no município Orleans-Santa Catarina. 2018. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências da Linguagem) - Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina, Tubarão, 2018.
• CAMIC, Paul M.; BAKER, Erin L.; TISCHLER, Victoria. Theorizing How Art Gallery Interventions Impact People with Dementia and Their Caregivers. Gerontologist, Oxford, v. 56, n. 6, p. 1033-1041, 2016.
• CAMIC, Paul M.; TISCHLER, Victoria; PEARMAN; Chantal H. Viewing and Making Art Together: A Multi-session Art-gallery-based Intervention for People with Dementia and their Carers. Aging & Mental Health, Abington, v. 18, n. 2, p. 161-168, 2014.
• CASTRO, Fernanda R. Há sentido na educação não formal na perspectiva da formação integral. Museologia & Interdisciplinaridade, Brasília, DF, v. 4, n. 8, p. 14, 2015.
• CHAGAS, Mário et al. A museologia e a construção de sua dimensão social: olhares e caminhos. Cadernos de Sociomuseologia, Lisboa, v. 55, n. 11, p. 73-102, 2018.
• CUNHA, P. P. et al. Museum-based Art Interventions for People with Dementia and Their Caregivers: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, New York, v. 67, p. 340, 2019.
• CURY, Marília X. Novas perspectivas para a comunicação museológica e os desafios da pesquisa de recepção em museus. In: I SEMINÁRIO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO EM MUSEOLOGIA DOS PAÍSES DE LÍNGUA PORTUGUESA E ESPANHOLA, 2009, Porto. Anais […]. São Paulo: MAE USP São Paulo, p. 270-279, 2010.
• DESVALLÉES, André; MAIRESSE, François. Conceitos-chave em museologia. In: ICOM- Conselho Internacional de Museus. São Paulo: Secretaria de Estado da Cultura de São Paulo, 2013. p. 100.
• DOLL, Johannes. Educação, cultura e lazer: perspectivas de velhice bem-causadas. In: NERI, A. O. (Ed.). Idosos no Brasil: vivências; desafios e expectativas na terceira idade. São Paulo: Fundação Perseu Abramo, 2007.
• FANCOURT, Daisy; STEPTOE, Andrew. Cultural Engagement Predicts Changes in Cognitive Function in Older Adults Over a 10 Year Period: Findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Scientific Reports, London, v. 8, n. 10226, p. 01-08, 2018.
• FANCOURT, Daisy; STEPTOE, Andrew; CADAR, Dorina. Cultural Engagement and Cognitive Reserve: Museum Attendance and Dementia Incidence Over a 10-year Period. The British Journal of Psychiatry, London, v. 213, n. 5, p. 661-663, 2018.
• FLATT, Jason D. et al. Subjective Experiences of an Art Museum Engagement Activity for Persons with Early Alzheimer’s Disease and Their Family Caregivers. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, Weston, v. 30, n. 4, p. 380-389, 2015.
• GALVANESE, Ana Teresa C. et al. A produção de acesso da população idosa ao território da cultura: uma experiência de terapia ocupacional num museu de arte. Cadernos de Terapia Ocupacional da UFSCar, São Carlos, v. 22, n.1, p. 129-135, 2014.
• GARCIA-VALDEZ, Maria Teresa; SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ, Diego; ROMAN-PEREZ, Román-Perez. Aging and Adaptation Strategies to Urban Environments from Environmental Gerontology. Estudios Demograficos y Urbanos, Ciudad de México, v. 34, n. 1, p. 101-128, 2019.
• GARNER, Joanna; KAPLAN, Avi; PUGH, Kevin. Museums as Contexts for Transformative Experiences and Identity Development. Journal of Museum Education, Washington, DC, v. 41, n. 4, p. 341-352, 2016.
• GOHN, Maria da Glória. Educação não-formal na pedagogia social. In: CONGRESSO INTERNACIONAL DE PEDAGOGIA SOCIAL, 1., 2006, São Paulo. Anais […]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, 2006.
• GOHN, Maria da Glória. Educação não formal: aprendizagens e saberes em processos participativos. Investigar em Educação-Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências da Educação, Lisboa, v. 2, n. 1, p. 35-50, 2014.
• GOMES, Virginia da Assunção Morais. Novos paradigmas comunicacionais junto de públicos com perturbações neuro cognitivas em museus. 2016. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação Especial - Domínio Cognitivo-Motor) - Politécnico de Leiria, Leiria, 2016.
• GONZALEZ, Maria L.; GUERRERO, X. Museums as a Factor for the Social Integration of Art in the Community: The Experience of Cultural Volunteering by Members of the Senior community. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, Madrid, v. 29, n. 1, p. 83-93, 2016.
• GOULDING, Anna. Lifelong Learning for People Aged 64+ within the Contemporary Art Gallery Context. Educational Gerontology , Philadelphia, v. 38, n. 4, p. 215-227, 2012.
• GUARITA, Ana Lúcia. Os museus e o público sénior: proposta de procedimentos para uma visita a um museu de arte para um público sénior de baixo nível de escolaridade. 2017. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação Artística) - Escola Superior de Educação de Lisboa, Lisboa, 2017.
• HAMBLIN, Kate A.; HARPER, S. The UK’s ageing population: challenges and opportunities for museums and galleries. Oxford: Oxford, 2016.
• HANSEN; Anna ; ZIPSANE, Henrik. Older People as a Developing Market for Cultural Heritage Sites. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, Glasgow, v. 20, n. 1, p. 137-143, 2014.
• HENDRIKS, Iris. et al. Evaluation of the ‘Unforgettable’ Art Program by People with Dementia and Their Care-givers. Ageing and Society, Cambridge, v. 41(2), p, 294-312, 2019.
• HERNANDÉZ, Oscar; TONEY, Benjamin. Museums as Social and Cultural Spaces for Active Ageing: Evidence, Challenges and Opportunities. Culturales, Cidade do México, v. 9, p. 1-42, 2021.
• HOOPER-GREENHILL, Eilean et al. Measuring the Outcomes and Impact of Learning in Museums, Archives and Libraries: The Learning Impact Research Project End of Project Paper. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries (RCMG), 2003.
• HOVI-ASSAD, Pia. The Role of the Museum in an Ageing Society. Museum International, San Francisco, v. 68, n. 3-4, p. 84-97, 2016.
• HSIEH; Hui-Jong. Museum Lifelong Learning of the Aging People. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, Oxford, v. 2, n. 2, p. 4831-4835, 2010.
• HUMBLE, Laurel; SCHWARTZ, M. Museum Programs for People with Dementia: Effects on Program Participants, Practitioners and Host Institutions. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, Chicago, v. 8, p. 251, 2012.
• INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA (IBGE). ERVATTI, Leila Regina; BORGES, Gabriel Mendes; JARDIM, Antonio de Ponte (Org.). Mudança demográfica no Brasil no início do século XXI: subsídios para as projeções da população. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 2015.
• IOANNIDES, Elisabeth. Museums as Therapeutic Environments and the Contribution of Art Therapy. Museum International , London, v. 68, n. 3-4, p. 98-109, 2016.
• JOHNSON, Joana et al. Museum Activities in Dementia Care: Using Visual Analog Scales to Measure Subjective Wellbeing. Dementia-International Journal of Social Research and Practice, London, v. 16, n. 5, p. 591-610, 2017.
• KOEBNER, Ian J. et al. The Art of Analgesia: A Pilot Study of Art Museum Tours to Decrease Pain and Social Disconnection Among Individuals with Chronic Pain. Pain Medicine, Oxford, v. 20, n. 4, p. 681-691, 2018.
• KÖPTKE, Luciana. S.; VALENTE, Maria E. A. (Coord.). O formal e o não-formal na dimensão educativa do museu. In: I e II Seminário sobre o formal e o não formal na dimensão educativa do museu MAST E MUSEU DA VIDA, 1./2., 2002, Rio de Janeiro. Anais […]. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2002.
• LEVAC, Danielle; COLQUHOUN, Heather; O’BRIEN, Kelly K. Scoping Studies: Advancing the Methodology. Implementation Science, Manchester, v. 5, n. 1, p. 69, 2010.
• LIVINGSTON, Lucas et al. Art in the Moment: Evaluating a Therapeutic Wellness Program for People with Dementia and their Care Partners. Journal of Museum Education , Washington, DC, v. 41, n. 2, p. 100-109, 2016.
• MACADAMS, Dan P.; ST. AUBIN, Ed; LOGAN, R. L. Generativity Among Young, Midlife, and Older Adults. Psychology and Aging, Washington, DC, v. 8, n. 2, p. 221-230, 1993.
• MARANDINO, Marta O. (Org.). Educação em museus: a mediação em foco. São Paulo: FEUSP, 2008.
• MARANDINO, Marta et al. Educação não formal e a divulgação científica: o que pensa quem faz? In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA EM EDUCAÇÃO EM CIÊNCIAS, 4, 2003, Bauru. Anais […]. Bauru: Editora/Instituição, 2003.
• MARCELINO, Ana M. R. A importância de projetos e atividades de envelhecimento ativo para populações seniores: o exemplo da Casa-Museu, Centro Cultural João Soares - Cortes (Leiria). 2014. Dissertação (Mestrado em Intervenção para um Envelhecimento Activo) - Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Leiria, 2014.
• MILES, Amanda N. et al. Turning Back the Hands of Time: Autobiographical Memories in Dementia Cued by a Museum Setting. Consciousness and Cognition, SanDiego, v. 22, n. 3, p. 1074-1081, 2013.
• NERI, Anita L. Qualidade de vida e subjetividade. In: NERI, A. L. (Org.). Qualidade de vida na velhice: enfoque multidisciplinar. Campinas: Alínea, 2011. p. 13-60.
• NEWMAN, Andrew; GOULDING, Anna; WHITEHEAD, Christopher. Contemporary Visual Art and the Construction of Identity: Maintenance and Revision Processes in Older Adults. International Journal of Heritage Studies, New York, v. 20, n. 4, p. 432-453, 2014.
• OLIVEIRA, Denyse. A experiência museal dos idosos no Museu da Vida: acessibilidade, interação e diálogo. 2019. Dissertação (Mestrado em Divulgação da Ciência, Tecnologia e Saúde) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio Janeiro, 2019.
• PEREIRA, Teresa Homem de Melo de Moura. Regimes de gratuitidade em Museus Nacionais: impactos nos públicos seniores. 2016. Dissertação (Mestrado em Gestão e Estudos da Cultura) - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa, 2016.
• PETERS, Micah. D. J. et al. Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews. International Journal of Evidence-based Healthcare, Adelaide, South Australia, v. 13, n. 3, 2015.
• ROBERTSON, Hamish O. (Ed.). The Caring Museum: New Models of Engagement with Ageing. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc, 2015.
• ROE, Brenda. et al. Coffee, Cake and Culture: Evaluation of an Art for Health Programme for Older People in the Community. Dementia, London, v. 15, n. 4, p. 539-559, 2014.
• SÁ, Rosa C. P. Relação do público sénior com o Museu de Olaria de Barcelos. 2016. Dissertação (Mestrado em Gestão Artística e Cultural) - Escola Superior de Educação, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Viana do Castelo, 2016.
• SCHALL, Arthur. et al. Art Museum-based Intervention to Promote Emotional Well-being and Improve Quality of Life in People with Dementia: The ARTEMIS project. Dementia , London, v. 17, n. 6, p. 728-743, 2018.
• SCHERGER, S.; NAZROO, J.; HIGGS, P. Leisure Activities and Retirement: Do Structures of Inequality Change in Old Age? Ageing and Society , Cambridge, v. 31, n. 1, p. 146-172, 2011.
• SCHOKLITSCH, Angela BAUMANN, Urs. Generativity and Aging: A Promising Future Research Topic? Journal of Aging Studies, Massachusetts, v. 26, n. 3, p. 262-272, 2012.
• SECCOMBE, Peter; LEHNES, Patrick. (Ed.). Heritage Interpretation for Senior Audiences: A Handbook for Heritage Interpreters and Interpretation Managers. [S. l.: s. n.], 2015.
• SILVA, Ana Carolina L. Análise do impacto de atividades externas de lazer na vida dos residentes de uma instituição de longa permanência: o caso do Lar dos Idosos Nossa Senhora da Saúde. 2019. Dissertação (Mestrado em Gerontologia) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2010.
• SILVA, Luana G. V. Públicos idosos e museus no Brasil: formas de atuação e perspectivas: estudo exploratório. 2016. Dissertação (Mestrado em Museologia), Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2016.
• SMIRAGLIA, Christina. Qualities of the Participant Experience in an Object-based Museum Outreach Program to Retirement Communities. Educational Gerontology , Philadelphia, v. 41, n. 3, p. 238-248, 2015.
• SMIRAGLIA, Christina. Targeted Museum Programs for Older Adults: A Research and Program Review. Curator: The Museum Journal, New York, v. 59, n. 1, p. 39-54, 2016.
• ST JACQUES, Peggy L.; MONTGOMERY, Daniel; SCHACTER, D. L. Modifying Memory for a Museum Tour in Older Adults: Reactivation-Related Updating that Enhances and Distorts Memory is Reduced in Aging. Memory, Hove, v. 23, n. 6, p. 876-887, 2014.
• TEIXEIRA, Giles; FARIA, Margarida Lima de; VLACHOU, Maria. Museus e público sénior em Portugal: percepções; utilizações e recomendações. Lisboa: Grupo para a Acessibilidade nos Museus, 2012.
• THOMSON, Linda J. et al. Effects of a Museum-based Social Prescription Intervention on Quantitative Measures of Psychological Wellbeing in Older Adults. Perspectives in Public Health, London, v. 138, n. 1, p. 28-38, 2018.
• THOMSON, Linda J. et al. Enhancing Cancer Patient Well-being with a Nonpharmacological: Heritage-focused Intervention. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Plymouth, v. 44, n. 5, p. 731-740, 2012.
• THOMSON, Linda J. M.; CHATTERJEE, H. J. Well-being with Objects: Evaluating a Museum Object-Handling Intervention for Older Adults in Health Care Settings. Journal of Applied Gerontology, Tampa, v. 35, n. 3, p. 349-362, 2016.
• TODD, Carolyn et al. Museum-based Programs for Socially Isolated Older Adults: Understanding What Works. Health and Place, Kidlington, v. 48, p. 47-55, 2017.
• TRICCO, Andrea C. et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (Prisma-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, v. 169, n. 7, p. 467-473, 2018.
• VIEIRA, S. P. Sabedoria, gerotranscendência e criatividade na velhice. In: FREITAS, Elizabete Viana de; & PY, Lígia (Ed.). Tratado geriatria e gerontologia. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 2013.
• WAHL, Hans-Werner; IWARSSON, Susanne; OSWALD, Frank. Aging Well and the Environment: Toward an Integrative Model and Research Agenda for the Future. The Gerontologist, Washington, DC, v. 52, n. 3, p. 306-316, 2012.
• WAHL, Hans-Werner; WEISMAN, Gerard D. Environmental Gerontology at the Beginning of the New Millennium: Reflections on Its Historical, Empirical; and Theoretical Development. The Gerontologist, Washington, DC, v. 43, n. 5, p. 616-627, 2003.
• WAHL, Hans-Werner; GERSTORF, Denis. Person-environment Resources for Aging Well: Environmental Docility and Life Space as Conceptual Pillars for Future Contextual Gerontology. The Gerontologist, Washington, DC, v. 60, n. 3, p. 8, 2020.
• WHO-WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Geneva: WHO, 2002.
• WHO-WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Envelhecimento ativo: uma política de saúde. Brasília, DF: Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde, 2005.
• WHO-WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva: WHO , 2007.
• WHO-WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Relatório Mundial de Envelhecimento e Saúde. Geneva: WHO , 2015.
• WITHNALL, Alexandra. Lifelong Learning Comes of Age: Intergenerational Perspectives. Investigar em Educação: Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências da Educação, Lisboa, v. 2, n. 5, p. 17, 2016.

SITES

• DESMARAIS, Sarah; BEDFORD, Laura; CHATTERJEE, Helen J., Museums as Spaces for Wellbeing: A Second Report from the National Alliance for Museums, Health and Wellbeing, London. Available at: Available at: https://bit.ly/2IZZzjJ Accessed in: 15 Nov. 2019.
  » https://bit.ly/2IZZzjJ
• INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA (IBGE). Projeção da população do Brasil e Unidades da Federação por sexo e idade para o período 2010-2060. Diretoria de Pesquisas: Coordenação de População e Indicadores Sociais. Gerência de Estudos e Análises da Dinâmica Demográfica. 2013. Brasília. Available at: Available at: https://bit.ly/3zQxMjk Accessed in: 20 Aug. 2020.
  » https://bit.ly/3zQxMjk
• INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS. Standards. ICOM, Paris, 2019. Available at: Available at: https://bit.ly/3Q9ZPiY Accessed in: 25 Aug. 2020.
  » https://bit.ly/3Q9ZPiY
• KELLY, Lynda et al. Energised, Engaged, Everywhere: Older Australians and Museums. Available at: Available at: https://bit.ly/3A3PgZO Accessed in: 8 aug. 2019.
  » https://bit.ly/3A3PgZO
• LACKOI, K. et al. A Preliminary Report from National Alliance for Museums, Health and Welbeing. Museus and Wellbeing Alliance, London, 2016. Available at: Available at: https://bit.ly/2IZZzjJ Accessed in: 10 Aug. 2019.
  » https://bit.ly/2IZZzjJ

• 4
  Check Garner, Kaplan e Pugh (2016), Roe et al. (2014) e Todd et al. (2017).
• 5
  Check Goulding (2012) e Hsieh (2010).
• 6
  Check Ander (2012), Ioannides (2016), Johnson et al. (2015).
• 7
  Check World Health Organization (2002).
• 8
  Id. (2015).
• 9
  Check Desmarais, Bedford e Chatterjee (2018) e Lackoi (2016).
• 10
  Check Wahl, Iwarsson e Oswald (2012) e Wahl e Gerstorf (2020).
• 11
  Check World Health Organization (2007).
• 12
  Check International Council of Museums (2019).
• 13
  Check Erikson (1963, 1969, 1982) apudMacAdams, St. Aubin e Logan (1993).
• 14
  Check Baltes (1987).
• 15
  Check Schoklitsch e Baumann (2012).
• 16
  Check Gohn (2006), Köptke e Valente (2002), Marandino (2008) e Marandino et al. (2003).
• 17
  Check Castro (2015), Gohn (2014), Hooper-Greenhill et al. (2003) e Withnall (2016).
• 18
  Check Hamblin e Harper (2016) e World Health Organization (2007).
• 19
  Check Hernandéz e Toney (2021).
• 20
  Check Araujo (2016) e Silva (2016).
• 21
  Check Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2015).
• 22
  Ibid. (2015).
• 23
  Check Kelly et al. (2002).
• 24
  Check Teixeira, Faria e Vlachou (2012).
• 25
  Check Smiraglia (2016).
• 26
  Check Benitez (2013) e Robertson (2015).
• 27
  Check Cury (2010).
• 28
  Check Hooper-Greenhill et al., op. cit.
• 29
  Check Cachioni et al. (2014), Doll (2007), Neri (2011) e Vieira et al. (2013).
• 30
  Check Garcia-Valdez, Sanchez-Gonzalez e Roman-Perez (2019), Wahl, Iwarsson e Oswald (2012) e Wahl e Weisman (2003).
• 31
  Check Levac, Colquhoun e O’Brien (2010).
• 32
  Check Arksey e O’Malley (2005), Levac, Colquhoun e O’Brien (2010) e Tricco et al. (2018).
• 33
  Check Peters et al. (2015).
• 34
  Check Araujo, Hinsliff-Smith e Cachioni (2020).
• 35
  World Health Organization (2005).
• 36
  Check Marcelino (2014).
• 37
  Check Seccombe e Lehnes (2015).
• 38
  Check Neri, op. cit.
• 39
  Check Araujo, op. cit.
• 40
  Check Roe et al. (2014), Silva (2010) e Thomson e Chatterjee (2016).
• 41
  Check Sá (2016).
• 42
  Check Gonzalez e Guerrero (2016).
• 43
  Check Guarita (2017).
• 44
  Check Smiraglia (2015).
• 45
  Check Thomson et al. (2012).
• 46
  Check Koebner et al. (2018).
• 47
  Check Hendriks et al. (2019).
• 48
  Check Smiraglia (2016).
• 49
  Check Fancourt, Steptoe e Cadar (2018), Gonzalez e Guerrero, op. cit., e Silva (2016).
• 50
  Check Araujo, op. cit., Cunha et al. (2019) e Smiraglia (2016).
• 51
  Check Cunha et al. (2019).
• 52
  Check Bennington et al. (2016), Cachoeira (2018), Gomes (2016) e Silva (2010).
• 53
  Check Hendriks et al. op. cit., Johnson et al. (2017), Koebner et al., op. cit., Oliveira (2019) e Thomson et al. (2012).
• 54
  Check Livingston et al. (2016), Smiraglia (2015) e Thomson et al. (2018).
• 55
  Check Scherger, Nazroo e Higgs (2011).
• 56
  Check Desvallées e Mairesse (2013).
• 57
  Check Belver (2018), Cunha et al., op. cit., Flatt et al. (2015), Gomes (2016), Hendriks et al. op. cit., Humble e Schwartz (2012), Johnson et al., op. cit., Livingston et al., op. cit., Miles et al., op. cit., Roe et al., op. cit. e Schall et al. (2018).
• 58
  Check Camic, Baker e Tischler (2016) e Camic, Tischler e Pearman (2014).
• 59
  Check Thomson e Chatterjee (2016).
• 60
  Check Thomson et al. (2018) e Todd et al., op. cit.
• 61
  Check Antunes e Jesus (2018).
• 62
  Check Bennington et al., op. cit. e Galvanese et al. (2014).
• 63
  Check Silva (2016) e Smiraglia (2016).
• 64
  Check Smiraglia (2015).
• 65
  Check Guarita, op. cit.
• 66
  Check Silva (2010).
• 67
  Check Cachoeira, op. cit., Goulding, op. cit., Hansen e Zipsane (2014), Newman, Goulding e Whitehead (2014) e Scherger, Nazroo e Higgs, op. cit.
• 68
  Check Alelis, Bobrowicz e Ang (2015).
• 69
  Check Cunha et al. (2019).
• 70
  Check Fancourt e Steptoe (2018), Koebner et al., op. cit., Oliveira, op. cit. e St Jacques, Montgomery e Schacter (2014).
• 71
  Check Pereira (2016).
• 72
  Check Sá, op. cit.
• 73
  Check Gonzalez e Guerrero (2016).
• 74
  Check Araujo (2016).
• 75
  Check Chagas et al. (2018).
• 76
  Check Flat et al. op. cit. e Thomson e Chatterjee, op. cit.
• 77
  Check Fancourt, Steptoe e Cadar, op. cit., Miles et al. (2013) e St Jacques, Montgomery e Schacter, op. cit.
• 78
  Check Johnson et al., op. cit.
• 79
  Check Antunes e Jesus, op. cit., Bennington et al., op. cit., Galvanese, op. cit., Newman et al., op. cit., Roe et al., op. cit., Smiraglia (2015, 2016), Thomson et al. (2018) e Thomson e Chatterjee (2016).
• 80
  Check Belver et al., op. cit., Camic, Tischler e Pearman, op. cit., Cunha et al., op. cit., Flatt et al., op. cit., Hendriks et al., op. cit., Koebner et al., op. cit., Livingston et al., op. cit., Schall et al., op. cit., Thomson et al., op. cit.
• 81
  Check Humble e Schwartz (2012) e Roe et al., op. cit.
• 82
  Check Gonzalez e Guerrero, op. cit. e Scherger, Nazroo e Higgs, op. cit.
• 83
  Check Pereira, op. cit. e Silva (2016).
• 84
  Check Araujo (2016), Belver et al., op. cit., Livingston et al., op. cit., Roe et al., op. cit. e Sá, op. cit.
• 85
  Check Camic, Tischler e Pearman, op. cit., Galvanese et al., op. cit., Goulding, op. cit., Oliveira, op. cit., Silva (2010), Smiraglia (2015, 2016) e Thomson et al. (2018).
• 86
  Check Cachoeira, op. cit., Gonzalez e Guerrero, op. cit. e Newman, Goulding e Whitehead, op. cit.
• 87
  Check Bennington et al., op. cit. e Silva, op. cit.
• 88
  Check Gomes, op. cit., Guarita, op. cit., Hansen e Zipsane, op. cit., Oliveira, op. cit., Roe et al., op. cit., Schall et al., op. cit., Thomson e Chatterjee, 2016 e Todd et al., op. cit.
• 89
  Check Antunes e Jesus, op. cit., Araujo, op. cit., Goulding, op. cit. e Sá, op. cit.
• 90
  Check Alelis, Bobrowicz e Ang, op. cit.
• 91
  Check Roe et al., op. cit. e THOMSON et al. (2018).
• 92
  Check Silva (2010).
• 93
  Check Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2015).
• 94
  Id., 2013.
• 95
  Check World Health Organization (2005).
• 96
  Check Arnott et al., 2018 e Hovi Assad (2016).
• 97
  Check Desmarais, Bedford e Chatterjee, op. cit., Lackoi, op. cit. e Robertson, op. cit.

Appendix A

1
Selection Database research, 2020.

Appendix A

2
Selected Studies. n=39, 2020.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  10 Oct 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  02 Nov 2021
• Accepted
  26 May 2022