Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 31, Issue 12, pp 1719–1725 | Cite as

Individual healthy aging indices, measurements and scores

  • Jean-Pierre Michel
  • Christophe Graf
  • Fiona EcarnotEmail author


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.


Aging 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.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Michel JP, Sadana R (2017) “Healthy aging” concepts and measures. J Am Med Dir Assoc 18:460–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erikson EH (1950) Childhood and society. WW Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cumming E, Henry WE (1961) Growing old, the process of disengagement. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Havighurst RJ (1961) Successful aging. Gerontol 1:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Havighurst RJ (1963) Successful aging. In: Williams RH, Tibbits C, Donahue W (eds) Processes of aging. Atherton, New York, pp 299–320Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW et al (1963) Studies of illness in the aged. The index of Adl: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 185:914–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neugarten BL (1972) Personality and the aging process. Gerontologist 12:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rowe JW, Kahn RL (1987) Human aging: usual and successful. Science (New York) 237:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rowe JW, Kahn RL (1998) Successful aging. Aging (Milan, Italy) 10:142–144Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baltes PB, Baltes MM (1990) Successful aging: perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butler RM, Oberlink MR, Schechter M (1990) Promise of productive aging: from biology to social policy. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organization (2002) Active ageing: a policy framework. World Health Organization, Geneva, p 59Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerontological Society of America (2005) Civic Engagement in an Older America. Accessed 02 Apr 2019
  14. 14.
    Martinson M, Minkler M (2006) Civic engagement and older adults: a critical perspective. Gerontologist 46:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tornstam L (2005) Gerotranscendence: a developmental theory of positive aging. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Swedish National Institute of Public Health (2006) Healthy Ageing. A challenge for Europe, Sweden, p 29Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Young Y, Frick KD, Phelan EA (2009) Can successful aging and chronic illness coexist in the same individual? a multidimensional concept of successful aging. J Am Med Dir Assoc 10:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeste DV, Depp CA, Vahia IV (2010) Successful cognitive and emotional aging. World Psychiatry 9:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. Accessed 4 Apr 2019
  21. 21.
    Hicks MM, Conner NE (2014) Resilient ageing: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 70:744–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    World Health Organization (2015) World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization, Geneva, p 260Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rantanen KK, Strandberg TE, Stenholm SS et al (2015) Clinical and laboratory characteristics of active and healthy aging (AHA) in octogenarian men. Aging Clin Exp Res 27:581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kusumastuti S, Derks MG, Tellier S et al (2016) Successful ageing: a study of the literature using citation network analysis. Maturitas 93:4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Depp CA, Jeste DV (2006) Definitions and predictors of successful aging: a comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 14:6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu W, Pikhart H, Sacker A (2018) Domains and measurements of healthy aging in epidemiological studies: a review. Gerontologist 59:e294–e310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Newman AB, Boudreau RM, Naydeck BL et al (2008) A Physiologic Index of Comorbidity: relationship to mortality and disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 63:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanders JL, Minster RL, Barmada MM et al (2014) Heritability of and mortality prediction with a longevity phenotype: the healthy aging index. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu C, Smit E, Sanders JL et al (2017) A modified healthy aging index and its association with mortality: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2002. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 72:1437–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanders JL, Fitzpatrick AL, Boudreau RM et al (2012) Leukocyte telomere length is associated with noninvasively measured age-related disease: the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 67:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCabe EL, Larson MG, Lunetta KL et al (2016) Association of an index of healthy aging with incident cardiovascular disease and mortality in a community-based sample of older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 71:1695–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jaspers L, Schoufour JD, Erler NS et al (2017) Development of a healthy aging score in the population-based Rotterdam study: evaluating age and sex differences. J Am Med Dir Assoc 18:e1–e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goncalves J, Gomes MI, Fonseca M et al (2017) Selfie Aging Index: an index for the self-assessment of healthy and active aging. Front Med (Lausanne) 4:236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Rehabilitation and GeriatricsUniversity Hospitals GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.EA3920University of Franche-ComtéBesanconFrance
  4. 4.Department of CardiologyUniversity Hospital Jean MinjozBesanconFrance

Personalised recommendations