Successful Aging in Canada: Prevalence and Predictors from a Population-Based Sample of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little research has been conducted to thoroughly explore the prevalence and predicators of successful aging (SA) from a national point of view. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were (1) to estimate the prevalence of SA as defined by Rowe and Kahn using a large population-based dataset and (2) to determine the roles of sociodemographic, psychological, and lifestyle factors in SA among Canadian seniors. METHODS: Data was from the Canadian Community Health Survey: Healthy Aging (CCHS-HA) (n = 25,864) conducted in 2008-2009. Rowe and Kahn's concept was used to measure SA. Descriptive analyses were used to estimate the prevalence of SA in those aged 45+ living in private dwellings in the ten provinces of Canada. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess predicators of SA among those aged 65+ and having complete data on cognition. RESULTS: The prevalence of SA was 50.1% among those aged 50+, then decreased to 46.2% for those aged 55+, 42.0% for those aged 60+, and 37.2% among those aged 65+. Assuming those 65+ living in institutions as unsuccessful agers, then the prevalence of SA was 35.3% among Canadian seniors aged 65+. There were no differences in prevalence rate of SA between males and females. We did not find higher income associated with SA. Being younger, married, regular drinkers, exercisers, perceived better health, satisfied with life, and taking calcium in the past month were associated with SA. The predicted probability of being a successful ager was 41% for those aged 65-74 years, 33% for 75-84 years, and 22% for those 85+ years, while controlling for other covariates. Presence of disease led to a major decline in SA, levels of functioning and engagement in contrast remained relatively constant. CONCLUSION: Over one third of the seniors in Canada met the criteria for SA, largely because the operationalization of the definition only considered severe chronic diseases that may not be well managed and thus likely to result in functional impairment. The modifiable risk factors identified provide direction for prevention efforts to increase SA at a population level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".