Individual healthy aging indices, measurements and scores
- 72 Downloads
The positive gerontological approach to aging has resulted in successive terminologies to describe the process of aging, including successful aging, active aging, healthy aging, or healthy and active aging, amongst others. Each definition proposed by geriatricians, psychologists, sociologists or public health specialists has been based on specific aspects of aging that are most important to the authors’ discipline, explaining the current difficulty in determining which is the best set of criteria to determine “good aging”. Two successive analyses of the measurements used in longitudinal studies from 1989 to 2018 testify to this heterogeneity in the types of questions proposed to evaluate the quality of the individual aging process. To confront this complexity, new and integrated indices have successively been proposed to quantify and qualify the survival period of aging individuals. The present paper aims to describe and compare the value of the “healthy aging index”, the “modified healthy aging index”, the “healthy aging score” and the “selfie aging test”. Attempts to date to identify the best individual measurement of “aging well” have been interesting, and certainly show promise, but their limitations to specific populations call for more concerted effort from the scientific community to obtain worldwide validation. Another option would be to identify the best self-assessment questionnaire and include it in a mobile device, enabling longer term personal follow-up of aging functions. There is a clear lack of data of this type at present, and an urgent need to obtain such information, to enable early and targeted interventions.
KeywordsAging Healthy aging Healthy aging index Healthy aging score Selfie aging test
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
No author has any conflict of interest to declare.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.Erikson EH (1950) Childhood and society. WW Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 3.Cumming E, Henry WE (1961) Growing old, the process of disengagement. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 5.Havighurst RJ (1963) Successful aging. In: Williams RH, Tibbits C, Donahue W (eds) Processes of aging. Atherton, New York, pp 299–320Google Scholar
- 9.Rowe JW, Kahn RL (1998) Successful aging. Aging (Milan, Italy) 10:142–144Google Scholar
- 11.Butler RM, Oberlink MR, Schechter M (1990) Promise of productive aging: from biology to social policy. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 12.World Health Organization (2002) Active ageing: a policy framework. World Health Organization, Geneva, p 59Google Scholar
- 13.Gerontological Society of America (2005) Civic Engagement in an Older America. http://www.civicengagement.org/agingsociety/Pages%20from%20Geron-NLSept05.pdf. Accessed 02 Apr 2019
- 15.Tornstam L (2005) Gerotranscendence: a developmental theory of positive aging. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 16.The Swedish National Institute of Public Health (2006) Healthy Ageing. A challenge for Europe, Sweden, p 29Google Scholar
- 17.Fry CL, Dickerson-Putman J, Draper P et al (2008) Culture and the meaning of a good old age. In: Sokolovsky J (ed) The cultural context of aging: worldwide perspectives. Praeger, Westport, p 808Google Scholar
- 20.European Commission (2011) How to promote active ageing in Europe. EU support to local and regional actors. Brussels: AGE Platform Europe in partnership with the Committee of the Regions and the European Commission. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6d80a85f-43d5-4462-b5bf-8dd8aaffffb5. Accessed 4 Apr 2019
- 22.World Health Organization (2015) World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization, Geneva, p 260Google Scholar