| Literature DB >> 35457438 |
Xin Xu1, Yuan Zhao2, Jianfang Zhou1, Siyou Xia3.
Abstract
China is facing an increasingly contradictory challenge between growing demand for health services for the oldest-old and the unbalanced and inadequate development in the context of rapid population aging. This study sought to evaluate the quality of life of the oldest-old in China under the active aging framework. Health, participation, and security data were sourced from China Statistics/Labor Statistics/Civil Affairs Yearbook 2000-2016 and National 1% Sample Survey Data 2005-2015. Then, we used the current life table, entropy method, coefficient variation, and panel data regression to evaluate the quality of life among the oldest-old and reveal its regional differences and mechanisms. The results show: (1) From 2005 to 2015, the overall quality of life in China steadily improved, and the quality of health, participation, and security of the oldest-old increased by 6.06%, 5.64%, and 47.48%, respectively. (2) Distinct regional disparities exist in the distribution of quality of life for the oldest-old in China; the "east-northeast-middle-west" stepped-declining pattern existed stably. (3) Population and family structure, economic development, and social security were the main reasons for the regional differences in quality of life for the oldest-old. Narrowing the socioeconomic gap between regions, promoting the function of family pension, and improving social old-age service supply will help improve the quality of life of the oldest-old.Entities:
Keywords: China; active aging framework; oldest-old; quality-of-life evaluation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35457438 PMCID: PMC9031229 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theoretical framework of quality of life.
Evaluation index of quality of life for the oldest-old in China.
| Target Layer | Criterion Layer (B) | Index Layer (C) | Unit | Index Nature | Symbol |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of life (A) | Health dimension (B1) | C1: The average life expectancy | Year | Positive | ALE |
| C2: The disability rate of older adults | % | Negative | DR | ||
| C3: The spouse rate of older adults | % | Positive | SR | ||
| C4: The participation rate of the basic medical insurance for urban employees | % | Positive | UBMI | ||
| C5: The number of medical and health technical personnel per 100 oldest-old | People | Positive | PMHT | ||
| Participation dimension (B2) | C6: The average years of education of older adults | Year | Positive | AYE | |
| C7: The number of old-age activity centers per 1000 older adults | % | Positive | SAC | ||
| C8: The number of old-age organizations per 1000 older adults | % | Positive | OAO | ||
| C9: The number of geriatric associations per 10,000 older adults | Number | Positive | OAA | ||
| C10: The old-age school enrollment rate of older adults | % | Positive | OAS | ||
| Security dimension (B3) | C11: The old-age subsidy coverage rate | % | Positive | OSC | |
| C12: The coverage rate of older adults’ retirement pension 1 | % | Positive | PCR | ||
| C13: The urban pension insurance participation rate | % | Positive | UBPI | ||
| C14: The number of old-age service beds per 1000 older adults | Number | Positive | BOC | ||
| C15: The urban employees’ basic pension insurance benefits | 10,000 RMB | Positive | BPB | ||
| C16: The socialized pension payment rate 2 | % | Positive | SPP |
1 The coverage rate of older adults’ retirement pension: refers to the proportion of the older adults aged 60 and above whose main source of living is retirement pension in a region to the total number of older adults aged 60 and above in that region. 2 The socialized pension payment rate: refers to the proportion of the number of older adults aged 60 and above who receive social pension in a region.
Figure 2Measurement results of quality of life for the oldest-old in China, 2005–2015.
The coefficient of variation of health, participation, and security quality of life for the oldest-old.
| Health Quality (%) | Participation Quality (%) | Security Quality (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | |
| National | 1.26 | 1.24 | 1.23 | 1.56 | 1.44 | 1.52 | 1.86 | 1.58 | 1.53 |
| East | 1.19 | 1.16 | 1.15 | 1.34 | 1.28 | 1.35 | 1.52 | 1.45 | 1.41 |
| Central | 1.18 | 1.21 | 1.18 | 1.61 | 1.43 | 1.49 | 1.83 | 1.21 | 1.32 |
| West | 1.33 | 1.30 | 1.32 | 1.72 | 1.58 | 1.77 | 1.73 | 1.55 | 1.64 |
| Northeast | 1.21 | 1.14 | 1.14 | 1.34 | 1.33 | 1.42 | 1.85 | 1.65 | 1.48 |
Descriptive statistics of quality-of-life index for the oldest-old in China.
| Year | National Average | Maximum | Minimum | Eastern Average | Central Average | Western Average | Northeast Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 0.5595 | 0.8662 (Shanghai) | 0.1521 (Tibet) | 0.6395 | 0.6705 | 0.5414 | 0.5637 |
| 2010 | 0.5704 | 0.8147 (Beijing) | 0.1163 (Tibet) | 0.6626 | 0.6552 | 0.5226 | 0.6450 |
| 2015 | 0.5833 | 0.7943 (Beijing) | 0.0804 (Tibet) | 0.6715 | 0.6649 | 0.5220 | 0.6456 |
Note: In parentheses are the abbreviations of corresponding provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government.
Figure 3Comprehensive measurement of quality of life for the oldest-old in China, 2005–2015. Note: Standard map drawing based on the standard map service system of the Ministry of Natural Resources (the drawing number is GS (2019)1833). The base map is not modified.
Results of model estimation.
| Variables | Coefficient | Standard Error | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | −0.283 | 0.372 | −0.76 | 0.450 | [−1.028, 0.462] |
|
| −0.013 *** | 0.004 | −3.61 | 0.001 | [−0.020, −0.006] |
|
| 0.022 *** | 0.007 | 3.15 | 0.003 | [0.008, 0.035] |
|
| 0.105 * | 0.059 | 1.79 | 0.080 | [−0.013, 0.224] |
|
| −0.060 | 0.052 | −1.16 | 0.253 | [−0.163, 0.044] |
|
| −0.005 ** | 0.003 | −2.12 | 0.038 | [−0.011, 0.000] |
|
| 0.005 | 0.003 | 1.36 | 0.179 | [−0.002, 0.011] |
|
| −0.021 | 0.019 | −1.06 | 0.295 | [−0.060, 0.018] |
|
| 0.163 *** | 0.039 | 4.17 | 0.000 | [0.085, 0.242] |
|
| −0.001 ** | 0.000 | −2.06 | 0.044 | [−0.001, 0.000] |
| Mean dependent var | 0.571 | SD dependent var | 0.137 | ||
| R-squared | 0.483 | Number of obs | 93.000 | ||
| 5.495 | Prob > | 0.000 | |||
| Akaike crit. (AIC) | −332.960 | Bayesian crit. (BIC) | −307.634 | ||
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.