4.4 Review

How to Measure Population Aging? The Answer Is Less than Obvious: A Review

Journal

GERONTOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 136-144

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000494025

Keywords

Measures of population aging; Subjective measures of aging; Economic measures of aging; Functional measures of aging; Biomarkers; Life expectancy; Cognitive aging

Funding

  1. Columbia Aging Center
  2. Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme [262700]
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation [G-2015-14132]
  4. US National Science Foundation [DMS-1225529]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Usually, population aging is measured to inform fiscal and social planning because it is considered to indicate the burden that an elderly population presents to the economic, social security, and health systems of a society. Measures of population aging are expected to indicate shifts in the distribution of individuals' attributes (e.g., chronological age, health) within a population that are relevant to assessing the burden. We claim that chronological age - even though it is the attribute most broadly used - may frequently not be the best measure to satisfy this purpose. A distribution of chronological age per se does not present a burden. Rather, burdens arise from the characteristics that supposedly or actually accompany chronological ages. We posit that in addition to chronological age, meaningful measures of population aging should reflect, for instance, the distribution of economic productivity, health, functional capacities, or biologial age, as these attributes may more directly assess the burden on the socioeconomic and health systems. Here, we illustrate some limitations of measures of population aging based on each kind of measure, including chronological age, and review alternative measures that may better inform fiscal, social, and health planning. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available