Nancy Fugate Woods1, Eileen Rillamas-Sun2, Barbara B Cochrane3, Andrea Z La Croix4, Teresa E Seeman5, Hilary A Tindle6, Oleg Zaslavsky7, Chloe E Bird8, Karen C Johnson9, JoAnn E Manson10, Judith K Ockene11, Rebecca A Seguin12, Robert B Wallace13. 1. Department of Biobehavioral Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle. nfwoods@uw.edu. 2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Family and Child Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle. The de Tornyay Endowed Professorship in Healthy Aging, de Tornyay Center for Healthy Aging, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Famiy and Preventive Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla. 5. Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. 6. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, and Clinical and Translational Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Nursing, University of Haifa, Israel. 8. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 9. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. 10. Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Maryland. 11. Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. 12. Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 13. Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the proportion of the population aged 80 and over accelerates, so does the value of understanding the processes of aging well. The purposes of this article are to: (a) review contemporary theoretical and conceptual perspectives on aging well, (b) describe indicators of aging well that reflect key concepts and perspectives as assessed in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and (c) characterize the status of aging among women aged 80 and older using data obtained from WHI participants at the WHI Extension 2 follow-up. METHODS: Data from the Lifestyle Questionnaire, which was administered from 2011 to 2012 during the WHI Follow-up Study (Extension 2), were analyzed to provide a profile of the WHI cohort with respect to aging well. RESULTS: Data revealed substantial diversity in the cohort with respect to the various measures of aging well. Although many reported physical functioning levels consistent with disability, most rated their health as good or better. Most reported moderately high levels of resilience, self-control, and self-mastery but lower levels of environmental mastery. Finally, the cohort reported high levels of optimal aging as reflected by their high levels of emotional well-being and moderately high levels of life satisfaction and social support, but more modest levels of personal growth and purpose in life. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of some dimensions of aging well suggest that further examination of predictors of positive coping and resilience in the face of aging-related disability could identify opportunities to support and facilitate aging well among U.S. women.
BACKGROUND: As the proportion of the population aged 80 and over accelerates, so does the value of understanding the processes of aging well. The purposes of this article are to: (a) review contemporary theoretical and conceptual perspectives on aging well, (b) describe indicators of aging well that reflect key concepts and perspectives as assessed in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and (c) characterize the status of aging among women aged 80 and older using data obtained from WHI participants at the WHI Extension 2 follow-up. METHODS: Data from the Lifestyle Questionnaire, which was administered from 2011 to 2012 during the WHI Follow-up Study (Extension 2), were analyzed to provide a profile of the WHI cohort with respect to aging well. RESULTS: Data revealed substantial diversity in the cohort with respect to the various measures of aging well. Although many reported physical functioning levels consistent with disability, most rated their health as good or better. Most reported moderately high levels of resilience, self-control, and self-mastery but lower levels of environmental mastery. Finally, the cohort reported high levels of optimal aging as reflected by their high levels of emotional well-being and moderately high levels of life satisfaction and social support, but more modest levels of personal growth and purpose in life. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of some dimensions of aging well suggest that further examination of predictors of positive coping and resilience in the face of aging-related disability could identify opportunities to support and facilitate aging well among U.S. women.
Authors: Jennifer Reichstadt; Colin A Depp; Lawrence A Palinkas; David P Folsom; Dilip V Jeste Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Nancy Fugate Woods; Barbara B Cochrane; Andrea Z LaCroix; Rebecca A Seguin; Oleg Zaslavsky; Jingmin Liu; Jeannette M Beasley; Robert L Brunner; Mark A Espeland; Joseph S Goveas; Dorothy S Lane; JoAnn E Manson; Charles P Mouton; Jennifer G Robinson; Lesley F Tinker Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Oleg Zaslavsky; Barbara B Cochrane; Nancy Fugate Woods; Andrea Z LaCroix; Jingmin Liu; Jerald R Herting; Joseph S Goveas; Karen C Johnson; Lewis H Kuller; Lisa W Martin; Yvonne L Michael; Jennifer G Robinson; Marcia Stefanick; Lesley F Tinker Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Benjamin W Chrisinger; Sparkle Springfield; Eric A Whitsel; Aladdin H Shadyab; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Lorena Garcia; Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Electra D Paskett; Bette J Caan; Lisa Johnson; Brittany M Bernardo; Gregory S Young; Michael L Pennell; Roberta M Ray; Candyce H Kroenke; Peggy L Porter; Garnet L Anderson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Andrea Z LaCroix; Eileen Rillamas-Sun; Nancy F Woods; Julie Weitlauf; Oleg Zaslavsky; Regina Shih; Michael J LaMonte; Chloe Bird; Elizabeth M Yano; Meryl LeBoff; Donna Washington; Gayle Reiber Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2016-02
Authors: Sarah Mount; Luigi Ferrucci; Anke Wesselius; Maurice P Zeegers; Annemie Mwj Schols Journal: Aging (Albany NY) Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 5.682
Authors: Sparkle Springfield; FeiFei Qin; Haley Hedlin; Charles B Eaton; Milagros C Rosal; Herman Taylor; Ursula M Staudinger; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Sparkle Springfield; Feifei Qin; Haley Hedlin; Charles B Eaton; Milagros C Rosal; Herman Taylor; Ursula M Staudinger; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 4.614