4.6 Article

Are centenarians successful agers? Evidence from China

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 71, 期 5, 页码 1386-1394

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.18200

关键词

centenarian; China; longevity; oldest-old; successful aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the degree of successful aging among a large sample of Chinese centenarians. It finds substantial heterogeneity in achieving the criteria of successful aging among centenarians, with social factors significantly associated with their aging performances. Specific subtypes of successful aging may provide insights into the underlying biological-environmental mechanisms of exceptional longevity.
Background: It is unclear to what degree centenarians are successful agers. We assess successful aging (SA) and its subtypes in a large Chinese sample. Methods: Based on a large national sample of 18,311 Chinese centenarians, we first estimated the prevalence of SA among centenarians, and then used the Latent Class Analysis to classify centenarians into different types based on the five dimensions of SA. Multinomial regression analysis was used to examine how demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle covariates are associated with these identified types. Results: 5.7% of centenarians fulfilled all five criteria of SA, and 1.3% failed all five criteria. The remainder could be classified into six types of SA. The regression analysis further revealed that these SA types were related to various social factors. For example, with timely access to medical care, centenarians were three times more likely to be successful agers. Conclusions: Centenarians demonstrate substantial heterogeneity in terms of achieving five SA criteria. Social factors are found to be significantly associated with centenarians' aging performances. Specific subtypes of SA among centenarians may be associated with and help explore different underlying biological-environmental mechanisms of exceptional longevity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据