4.2 Article

Educational composition effect on the sex gap in life expectancy: A research note based on evidence from Australia

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2023.2273466

关键词

life expectancy; sex gap; education; decomposition; Australia; linked data

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Life expectancy for females has globally exceeded that of males this century. Within-country variation in life expectancy is closely related to education. Sex gaps in life expectancy can be divided into two factors: sex differences in education-specific mortality and sex differences in educational composition. Using Australian data from 2016 as an example, the sex gap in life expectancy at age 25 was 3.8 years. If males and females had the same educational composition, the sex gap would be as large as 4.5 years; however, it is reduced by 0.7 years due to lower levels of education among women. A hypothetical scenario considering recent increases in females' educational achievement suggests a potential increase in the sex gap to 4.1 years in favor of females.
Life expectancy for females has exceeded that of males globally this century. There is considerable within-country variation in life expectancy related to education. Sex gaps in life expectancy can be decomposed into two components: sex differences in education-specific mortality and sex differences in educational composition. We illustrate this using Australian data for 2016, when the sex gap in life expectancy at age 25 was 3.8 years. The sex gap would be as large as 4.5 years if males and females had the same educational composition; however, it is reduced by 0.7 years, given the lower levels of education among women than men. In a hypothetical scenario accounting for recent increases in females' educational achievement (holding the educational composition at all ages constant at that observed at ages 25-39 for both sexes), we estimate a potential increase in the sex gap (to 4.1 years) in favour of females.

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

4.2
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