Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:32:19.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Operational definitions of successful aging: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2013

Theodore D. Cosco ,
A. Matthew Prina ,
Jaime Perales ,
Blossom C. M. Stephan  and
Carol Brayne
Theodore D. Cosco*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
A. Matthew Prina
Affiliation:
Centre for Global Mental Health, Department of Health Services and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK
Jaime Perales
Affiliation:
Parc Sanitari, Sant Joan de Deu, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Blossom C. M. Stephan
Affiliation:
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Carol Brayne
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Theodore D Cosco, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. Phone: 07414983921. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Half a century after the inception of the term “successful aging (SA),” a consensus definition has not emerged. The current study aims to provide a comprehensive snapshot of operational definitions of SA.

Methods:

A systematic review across MedLine, PsycInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge of quantitative operational definitions of SA was conducted.

Results:

Of the 105 operational definitions, across 84 included studies using unique models, 92.4% (97) included physiological constructs (e.g. physical functioning), 49.5% (52) engagement constructs (e.g. involvement in voluntary work), 48.6% (51) well-being constructs (e.g. life satisfaction), 25.7% (27) personal resources (e.g. resilience), and 5.7% (6) extrinsic factors (e.g. finances). Thirty-four definitions consisted of a single construct, 28 of two constructs, 27 of three constructs, 13 of four constructs, and two of five constructs. The operational definitions utilized in the included studies identify between <1% and >90% of study participants as successfully aging.

Conclusions:

The heterogeneity of these results strongly suggests the multidimensionality of SA and the difficulty in categorizing usual versus successful aging. Although the majority of operationalizations reveal a biomedical focus, studies increasingly use psychosocial and lay components. Lack of consistency in the definition of SA is a fundamental weakness of SA research.

Keywords

successful aginghealthy agingsystematic reviewoperational definition
Type
Review Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 373 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen-Ranberg, K., Schroll, M. and Jeune, B. (2001). Healthy centenarians do not exist, but autonomous centenarians do: a population-based study of morbidity among Danish centenarians. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49, 900–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltes, P. B. and Baltes, M. M. (1990). Successful Aging: Perspectives from the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowling, A. (2006). Lay perceptions of successful ageing: findings from a national survey of middle aged and older adults in Britain. European Journal of Ageing, 3, 123–136.Google Scholar
Bowling, A. (2007). Aspirations for older age in the 21st century: what is successful aging? International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 64, 263–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowling, A. and Dieppe, P. (2005). What is successful ageing and who should define it? BMJ, 331, 1548–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depp, C. A. and Jeste, D. V. (2006). Definitions and predictors of successful aging: a comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14, 6–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez-Ballesteros Garcia, R. et al. (2011). Successful ageing: criteria and predictors. Psychology in Spain, 15, 94–101.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state.” A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of psychiatric research, 12, 189–198.Google Scholar
Glass, T. A. (2003). Assessing the success of successful aging. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139, 382–383.Google Scholar
Harden, A. et al. (2004). Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 794–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hung, L.-W., Kempen, G. and De Vries, N. (2010). Cross-cultural comparison between academic and lay views of healthy ageing: a literature review. Ageing & Society, 30, 1373–1391.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, F., Cohen, C. I. and Ramirez, P. M. (2010). Successful aging in older adults with schizophrenia: prevalence and associated factors. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18, 879–886.Google Scholar
Katz, S., Downs, T. D., Cash, H. R. and Grotz, R. C. (1970). Progress in development of the index of ADL. Gerontologist, 10, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malaspina, L. et al. (2011). Successful cognitive aging in persons living with HIV infection. Journal of NeuroVirology, 17, 110–119.Google Scholar
Noblit, G. and Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Oh, D. N. (2012). Structural equation modeling on successful aging in elders – focused on selection optimization compensation strategy. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 42, 311–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phelan, E. A. and Larson, E. B. (2002). “Successful aging” – where next? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50, 1306–1308.Google ScholarPubMed
Pruchno, R. A., Wilson-Genderson, M. and Cartwright, F. (2010). A two-factor model of successful aging. Journal of Gerontolology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65, 671–679.Google Scholar
Rowe, J. W. and Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: usual and successful. Science, 237, 143–149.Google Scholar
Rowe, J. W. and Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. Gerontologist, 37, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, S. A., Wershof Schwartz, A., Karunananthan, S., Bergman, H. and Mark Clarfield, A. (2011). The identification of frailty: a systematic literature review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 59, 2129–2138.Google Scholar
Wagnild, G. (2003). Resilience and successful aging. Comparison among low and high income older adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 29, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, Y., Frick, K. D. and Phelan, E. A. (2009). Can successful aging and chronic illness coexist in the same individual? A multidimensional concept of successful aging. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 10, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed