A comparative study of quantitative measurement tools for active aging_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

LI Jiajia ¹ ,  PEI Hongbo ¹ , SHI Xiue ² , HUANG Chaorong ² , FANG Yaqiong ¹ , ZHENG Xiaoyan ¹ , WANG Bo ² , YU Liping ²

1. Institute of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, “The Belt and Road” Research Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;
2. Gansu Province Hospital Rehabilitation Center, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

PEI Hongbo, Email: peihb@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Active ageing; Measurement tools; Index

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201908009

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objectives To understand the quantitative measurement tools for active aging and compare the index construction, applicability and application of different tools domestically and abroad, so as to provide a scientific basis for the formulation and improvement of localized measurement tools for active aging.Methods We performed electronical searches on PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, and websites of WHO, European Commission, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe from April 2002 to November 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and conducted a qualitative analysis and comparison of the obtained measurement tools.Results A total of 36 researches were included, which involved 9 original active aging quantitative measurement tools. Specifically, 3 were from Thailand, 2 were from China, 1 was from the European Union, Russia, Australia and Finland, respectively. There were 2 to 3 dimensions of the tools, 3 to 10 items of primary measurement targets, and 11 to 177 items of measurement indicators. The construction of the dimension and first-level measurement goals were mainly based on the three pillars of health, participation, and security which composed WHO’s policy framework. The indicators of tools had measured the health, participation, and security targets except for the AAQ-CHN (2012) and AAL-Thai (2016) tools. Five age-specific indicators of the use of electronic information technology equipment, voluntary services, participation in political activities, access to health care services, and lifelong learning habits appeared in the EU tool. The AAI-EU's empirical applications and related 20 studies had been published mainly in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. AAI-Thai (2006) and AAI-Thai (2014) were used in empirical researches in Asia and China, respectively, and the 3rd and 4th studies were published.Conclusions The indicators' design of AAI-EU (2012) has the most contemporary characteristics, the most confirmatory research and widest application. The development of Chinese localized quantitative measurement tools should take advantage of the EU and other representative measurement tools.

Citation： LI Jiajia, PEI Hongbo, SHI Xiue, HUANG Chaorong, FANG Yaqiong, ZHENG Xiaoyan, WANG Bo, YU Liping. A comparative study of quantitative measurement tools for active aging. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(3): 296-305. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201908009 Copy

1.	United Nations. World population prospects: the 2017 revision, key findings and advance tables. 2017. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html.
2.	World Health Organization. Active ageing: a policy framework. 2002. Available at: https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/active_ageing/en/.
3.	胡宏伟, 李延宇, 张楚, 等. 社会活动参与, 健康促进与失能预防—基于积极老龄化框架的实证分析. 中国人口科学, 2017, (4): 87-96+128.
4.	宋卫芳. 积极老龄化面临的问题及其实施途径. 人民论坛, 2016, (11): 132-134.
5.	于长禾, 孙亚男, 何丽云, 等. 量表研制及测量属性评价标准的比较研究. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2015, 17(6): 1127-1135.
6.	Thanakwang K, Soonthorndhada K. Attributes of active ageing among older persons in Thailand: evidence from the 2002 survey. Asia Pac Popul J, 2006, 21(3): 113-135.
7.	Tareque MI, Hoque N, Islam TM, et al. Relationships between the active aging index and disability-free life expectancy: a case study in the Rajshahi district of Bangladesh. Can J Aging-Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 2013, 32(4): 417-432.
8.	Tareque MI, Ahmed MM, Tiedt AD, et al. Can an active aging index (AAI) provide insight into reducing elder abuse? A case study in Rajshahi District, Bangladesh. Arch Gerontol Geriatr, 2014, 58(3): 399-407.
9.	Punyakaew A, Lersilp S, Putthinoi S. Active ageing level and time use of elderly persons in a Thai suburban community. Occup Ther Int, 2019, 2019: 1-8.
10.	胡敏. 老年人积极老龄化测评研究. 南昌: 南昌大学, 2012.
11.	Buys L, Miller E. Active ageing: developing a quantitative multidimensional measure. 2012. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2111-1_7.
12.	Zaidi A, Gasior K, Hofmarcher MM, et al. Active ageing index 2012. Vienna: European Centre, 2012.
13.	Rašticová M, Birčiaková N, Pavlíková EA, et al. Active ageing in the Czech Republic: a comparison of active ageing index and national action plan for positive ageing for the period 2013-2017. 26^th IBIMA conference, 2015.
14.	Amado CAF, São José JMS, Santos SP. Measuring active ageing: a data envelopment analysis approach. Eur J Oper Res, 2016, 255(1): 207-223.
15.	Lim EZK, Thompson CL. Measuring active ageing among older adults in Singapore. Ageing Soc, 2016, 36(9): 1853-1869.
16.	Pavlova I, Gumennikov I, Monastyrny E. Composite indices as international approaches to elderly population well-being evaluation: evidence from Russia. 2016. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2016.02.35.
17.	Martin S, Jiří K. Rule-based system for quality of life evaluation in socio-cultural field. 2016. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10195/66764.
18.	Djurovic I, Jeremic V, Bulajic M, et al. A two-step multivariate composite I-distance indicator approach for the evaluation of active ageing index. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 73-86.
19.	Formosa M. Responding to the active ageing index: innovations in active ageing policies in Malta. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 87-99.
20.	Rodriguez-Rodriguez V, Rojo-Perez F, Fernandez-Mayoralas G, et al. Active ageing index: application to Spanish regions. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 25-40.
21.	Varlamova M, Ermolina A, Sinyavskaya O. Active ageing index as an evidence base for developing a comprehensive active ageing policy in Russia. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 41-71.
22.	Principi A, Santini S, Socci M, et al. Retirement plans and active ageing: perspectives in three countries. Ageing Soc, 2018, 38(1): 56-82.
23.	Bacigalupe A, González-Rábago Y, Martín U, et al. The active ageing index in a southern european region (Biscay): main results and potentials for policymaking. Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 97-115.
24.	Dykstra PA, Fleischmann M. Are societies with a high value on the active ageing index more age integrated? Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 19-37.
25.	Guntupalli AM, Chakraborty S. active ageing index (AAI) in India: is the approach used in european countries applicable to developing countries? Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 437-463.
26.	Karpinska K. Differences in active ageing index in eastern european countries: a comparison of Poland and the Czech Republic. Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 193-209.
27.	Pham VT, Chen YM, Van Duong T, et al. Adaptation and validation of active aging index among older Vietnamese adults. J Aging Health, 2019, DOI: 10.1177/0898264319841524.
28.	Um J, Zaidi A, Choi SJ. Active ageing index in Korea - comparison with China and EU countries. Asia Soc Work Policy Rev, 2019, 13(1): 87-99.
29.	刘文, 杨馥萍. 中国积极老龄化发展水平测度—基于东中西部地区和28个省市的数据研究. 人口学刊, 2019, 41(2): 100-112.
30.	杨馥萍. 中国积极老龄化水平测度—基于CHARLS和CGSS的实证研究. 济南: 山东大学, 2019.
31.	Hsu HC, Liang J, Luh DL, et al. Social determinants and disparities in active aging among older Taiwanese. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2019, 16(16): 1-18.
32.	Hsu HC, Liang J, Luh DL, et al. Constructing Taiwan’s active aging index and applications for international comparison. Soc Indic Res, 2019, 3: 1-30.
33.	Thanakwang K, Isaramalai SA, Hatthakit U. Development and psychometric testing of the active aging scale for Thai adults. Clin Interv Aging, 2014, 9: 1211-1221.
34.	张建阁. 护生参与社区老年慢性病患者居家照护的联动效应研究. 郑州: 郑州大学, 2016.
35.	张建阁, 张艳, 史岩, 等. 中文版积极老龄量表信效度. 中国老年学杂志, 2017, 37(21): 5424-5426.
36.	韩二环, 赵静怡, 张艳, 等. 郑州市养老院老年人积极老龄化水平现状及影响因素. 中国老年学杂志, 2019, 39(1): 206-209.
37.	张慧颖张艳, 郭思瑾, 等. 河南省农村地区老年人积极老龄化水平及影响因素. 中国老年学杂志, 2019, 39(4): 962-965.
38.	Zasimova L, Sheluntcova M. Measuring active aging for government policy planning: a case of Russia. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 11/PA/2014, 2014. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2385832.
39.	Haque MN, Soonthorndhada K, Hunchangsith P, et al. Active ageing level in Thailand: a comparison between female and male elderly. J Health Res, 2016, 30(2): 99-107.
40.	Rantanen T, Portegijs E, Kokko K, et al. Developing an assessment method of active aging: University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale. J Aging Health, 2019, 31(6): 1002-1024.
41.	谢晖. 积极老龄化模型构建: 基于世界卫生组织积极老龄化框架的实证研究. 济南: 山东大学, 2019.
42.	Haque MN. Active Ageing level of older persons: regional comparison in Thailand. J Aging Res, 2016, 32(2): 99-107.
43.	Johnson M. The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
44.	谢祥龙, 陈艳, 劳颖欣, 等. 老年人互联网使用现状、影响因素及应对策略. 中国老年学杂志, 2017, 37(13): 3368-3370.
45.	同春芬, 刘嘉桐. 积极老龄化研究进展与展望. 老龄科学研究, 2017, 5(9): 69-78.
46.	São José JM, Timonen V, Amado CA, et al. A critique of the active ageing index. J Aging Stud, 2017, 40: 49-56.
47.	刘文, 焦佩. 国际视野中的积极老龄化研究. 中山大学学报(社会科学版), 2015, 55(1): 167-180.

1. United Nations. World population prospects: the 2017 revision, key findings and advance tables. 2017. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html.
2. World Health Organization. Active ageing: a policy framework. 2002. Available at: https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/active_ageing/en/.
3. 胡宏伟, 李延宇, 张楚, 等. 社会活动参与, 健康促进与失能预防—基于积极老龄化框架的实证分析. 中国人口科学, 2017, (4): 87-96+128.
4. 宋卫芳. 积极老龄化面临的问题及其实施途径. 人民论坛, 2016, (11): 132-134.
5. 于长禾, 孙亚男, 何丽云, 等. 量表研制及测量属性评价标准的比较研究. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2015, 17(6): 1127-1135.
6. Thanakwang K, Soonthorndhada K. Attributes of active ageing among older persons in Thailand: evidence from the 2002 survey. Asia Pac Popul J, 2006, 21(3): 113-135.
7. Tareque MI, Hoque N, Islam TM, et al. Relationships between the active aging index and disability-free life expectancy: a case study in the Rajshahi district of Bangladesh. Can J Aging-Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 2013, 32(4): 417-432.
8. Tareque MI, Ahmed MM, Tiedt AD, et al. Can an active aging index (AAI) provide insight into reducing elder abuse? A case study in Rajshahi District, Bangladesh. Arch Gerontol Geriatr, 2014, 58(3): 399-407.
9. Punyakaew A, Lersilp S, Putthinoi S. Active ageing level and time use of elderly persons in a Thai suburban community. Occup Ther Int, 2019, 2019: 1-8.
10. 胡敏. 老年人积极老龄化测评研究. 南昌: 南昌大学, 2012.
11. Buys L, Miller E. Active ageing: developing a quantitative multidimensional measure. 2012. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2111-1_7.
12. Zaidi A, Gasior K, Hofmarcher MM, et al. Active ageing index 2012. Vienna: European Centre, 2012.
13. Rašticová M, Birčiaková N, Pavlíková EA, et al. Active ageing in the Czech Republic: a comparison of active ageing index and national action plan for positive ageing for the period 2013-2017. 26^th IBIMA conference, 2015.
14. Amado CAF, São José JMS, Santos SP. Measuring active ageing: a data envelopment analysis approach. Eur J Oper Res, 2016, 255(1): 207-223.
15. Lim EZK, Thompson CL. Measuring active ageing among older adults in Singapore. Ageing Soc, 2016, 36(9): 1853-1869.
16. Pavlova I, Gumennikov I, Monastyrny E. Composite indices as international approaches to elderly population well-being evaluation: evidence from Russia. 2016. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2016.02.35.
17. Martin S, Jiří K. Rule-based system for quality of life evaluation in socio-cultural field. 2016. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10195/66764.
18. Djurovic I, Jeremic V, Bulajic M, et al. A two-step multivariate composite I-distance indicator approach for the evaluation of active ageing index. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 73-86.
19. Formosa M. Responding to the active ageing index: innovations in active ageing policies in Malta. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 87-99.
20. Rodriguez-Rodriguez V, Rojo-Perez F, Fernandez-Mayoralas G, et al. Active ageing index: application to Spanish regions. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 25-40.
21. Varlamova M, Ermolina A, Sinyavskaya O. Active ageing index as an evidence base for developing a comprehensive active ageing policy in Russia. J Popul Ageing, 2017, 10(1): 41-71.
22. Principi A, Santini S, Socci M, et al. Retirement plans and active ageing: perspectives in three countries. Ageing Soc, 2018, 38(1): 56-82.
23. Bacigalupe A, González-Rábago Y, Martín U, et al. The active ageing index in a southern european region (Biscay): main results and potentials for policymaking. Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 97-115.
24. Dykstra PA, Fleischmann M. Are societies with a high value on the active ageing index more age integrated? Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 19-37.
25. Guntupalli AM, Chakraborty S. active ageing index (AAI) in India: is the approach used in european countries applicable to developing countries? Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 437-463.
26. Karpinska K. Differences in active ageing index in eastern european countries: a comparison of Poland and the Czech Republic. Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018: 193-209.
27. Pham VT, Chen YM, Van Duong T, et al. Adaptation and validation of active aging index among older Vietnamese adults. J Aging Health, 2019, DOI: 10.1177/0898264319841524.
28. Um J, Zaidi A, Choi SJ. Active ageing index in Korea - comparison with China and EU countries. Asia Soc Work Policy Rev, 2019, 13(1): 87-99.
29. 刘文, 杨馥萍. 中国积极老龄化发展水平测度—基于东中西部地区和28个省市的数据研究. 人口学刊, 2019, 41(2): 100-112.
30. 杨馥萍. 中国积极老龄化水平测度—基于CHARLS和CGSS的实证研究. 济南: 山东大学, 2019.
31. Hsu HC, Liang J, Luh DL, et al. Social determinants and disparities in active aging among older Taiwanese. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2019, 16(16): 1-18.
32. Hsu HC, Liang J, Luh DL, et al. Constructing Taiwan’s active aging index and applications for international comparison. Soc Indic Res, 2019, 3: 1-30.
33. Thanakwang K, Isaramalai SA, Hatthakit U. Development and psychometric testing of the active aging scale for Thai adults. Clin Interv Aging, 2014, 9: 1211-1221.
34. 张建阁. 护生参与社区老年慢性病患者居家照护的联动效应研究. 郑州: 郑州大学, 2016.
35. 张建阁, 张艳, 史岩, 等. 中文版积极老龄量表信效度. 中国老年学杂志, 2017, 37(21): 5424-5426.
36. 韩二环, 赵静怡, 张艳, 等. 郑州市养老院老年人积极老龄化水平现状及影响因素. 中国老年学杂志, 2019, 39(1): 206-209.
37. 张慧颖张艳, 郭思瑾, 等. 河南省农村地区老年人积极老龄化水平及影响因素. 中国老年学杂志, 2019, 39(4): 962-965.
38. Zasimova L, Sheluntcova M. Measuring active aging for government policy planning: a case of Russia. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 11/PA/2014, 2014. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2385832.
39. Haque MN, Soonthorndhada K, Hunchangsith P, et al. Active ageing level in Thailand: a comparison between female and male elderly. J Health Res, 2016, 30(2): 99-107.
40. Rantanen T, Portegijs E, Kokko K, et al. Developing an assessment method of active aging: University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale. J Aging Health, 2019, 31(6): 1002-1024.
41. 谢晖. 积极老龄化模型构建: 基于世界卫生组织积极老龄化框架的实证研究. 济南: 山东大学, 2019.
42. Haque MN. Active Ageing level of older persons: regional comparison in Thailand. J Aging Res, 2016, 32(2): 99-107.
43. Johnson M. The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
44. 谢祥龙, 陈艳, 劳颖欣, 等. 老年人互联网使用现状、影响因素及应对策略. 中国老年学杂志, 2017, 37(13): 3368-3370.
45. 同春芬, 刘嘉桐. 积极老龄化研究进展与展望. 老龄科学研究, 2017, 5(9): 69-78.
46. São José JM, Timonen V, Amado CA, et al. A critique of the active ageing index. J Aging Stud, 2017, 40: 49-56.
47. 刘文, 焦佩. 国际视野中的积极老龄化研究. 中山大学学报(社会科学版), 2015, 55(1): 167-180.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

A comparative study of quantitative measurement tools for active aging

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content