The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Operational definitions of successful aging: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Half a century after the inception of the term "successful aging (SA)," a consensus definition has not emerged. The current study aims to provide a comprehensive snapshot of operational definitions of SA. METHODS: A systematic review across MedLine, PsycInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge of quantitative operational definitions of SA was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 105 operational definitions, across 84 included studies using unique models, 92.4% (97) included physiological constructs (e.g. physical functioning), 49.5% (52) engagement constructs (e.g. involvement in voluntary work), 48.6% (51) well-being constructs (e.g. life satisfaction), 25.7% (27) personal resources (e.g. resilience), and 5.7% (6) extrinsic factors (e.g. finances). Thirty-four definitions consisted of a single construct, 28 of two constructs, 27 of three constructs, 13 of four constructs, and two of five constructs. The operational definitions utilized in the included studies identify between <1% and >90% of study participants as successfully aging. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of these results strongly suggests the multidimensionality of SA and the difficulty in categorizing usual versus successful aging. Although the majority of operationalizations reveal a biomedical focus, studies increasingly use psychosocial and lay components. Lack of consistency in the definition of SA is a fundamental weakness of SA research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/37.4.433 · Cited by 4,347
Successful Aging: Perspectives from the Behavioral Sciences
(1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665684 · Cited by 1,362
Cited by
Successful aging: Advancing the science of physical independence in older adults
Anton, S. D., Woods, A. J., Ashizawa, T., Barb, D., Buford, T. W., Carter, C. S., Clark, D. J., Cohen, R. A., Corbett, D. B., Cruz-Almeida, Y., et al. (2015) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2015.09.005 · Cited by 292
Resilience measurement in later life: A systematic review and psychometric analysis
Cosco, T. D., Kaushal, A., Richards, M., Kuh, D., & Stafford, M. (2016) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0418-6 · Cited by 149
Self-citationToward a More Comprehensive Concept of Successful Aging: Disability and Care Needs: Table 1.
Tesch-Römer, C., & Wahl, H.-W. (2016) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbw162 · Cited by 105
How Healthy Lifestyle Factors at Midlife Relate to Healthy Aging
Atallah, N., Adjibade, M., Lelong, H., Hercberg, S., Galan, P., Assmann, K. E., & Kesse-Guyot, E. (2018) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu10070854 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Cosco, T. D., Prina, A. M., Perales, J., Stephan, B. C. M., & Brayne, C.
- Venue
- International Psychogeriatrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 373-381
- ISSN
- 1041-6102 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074010038
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.