Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This conceptual paper aims to explore the care needs of older migrants and refugees who have aged out of the extended family sphere and outline care pathways that do not depend on proximity to adult children or other family members. It focuses on how language and cultural barriers exacerbate the lack of family-based care in host-country care systems. Design/methodology/approach This conceptual paper draws together literature on migration, ageing, kinship and care systems to develop an original practice framework. It builds on research on access to older persons’ care among migrants and refugees; the social determinants of older migrants’ mental health, loneliness and social support; family caregiving and trust in formal care; and culturally responsive service design. Findings The paper outlines a framework of the four interdependent components that comprise the culturally responsive care pathway framework: language-bridging and interpreter-inclusive care design; diaspora and community support hubs as substitute kin networks; training and development of a culturally competent workforce; and simplified access and documentation pathways. These pillars are proposed to alleviate the “double disadvantage” that occurs when both geographic separation from relatives and linguistic and cultural unfamiliarity exist in host-country care systems. Practical implications The suggested framework offers an opportunity for care providers, social workers and policymakers to rethink processes for involving migrants and refugees with families, intake and communication processes, and community linkages for older migrants and refugees without a kin network. Social implications This gap affects social cohesion, healthy ageing and equitable access to care for culturally and linguistically diverse ageing populations. Originality/value This paper focuses on the distinct and rapidly expanding population of older migrants and refugees whose caregiving needs are not fully met by current care models, as these needs are often seen in isolation rather than in combination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shukla et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: