Life Expectancy and Healthy Life Expectancy of Adults in Oman: Does Women’s Longer Life Expectancy than Men Mean Success or Burden for Women?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to examine the life expectancy (LE) and healthy life expectancy (HLE) of Omani adults with age and gender differentials, focusing on whether the higher LE of women than men is a gain or burden for women. Method: Data for the study come from multiple sources such as the 2010 population census, the 2008 World Health Survey in Oman, and secondary data published in the Statistical Yearbook of Oman. The life table and the modified life table proposed by Sullivan were used for estimating the LE and HLE of adult people of age 20 and above, respectively. Results: LE in Oman reached 76 years for both sexes in recent times. However, since 2010 LE has been stalled in the vicinity of 76 years in Oman. Women had higher LE than men (79 years versus 74 years). In terms of HLE, men outweighed women in Oman. At the age of 20, the gap between male-female LE was found to be 4.7 years in favor of females, whereas the gap between male-female HLE was found to be 5.8 years in favor of males. Females spent a relatively long time in poor health status than males (20.8 years versus 10.8 years) and the proportion of life spent in poor health was greater for females than males (35.0% vs. 19.3%). This revealed the paradox of less mortality but higher morbidity among women, supporting the “Failure of Success” hypothesis. Conclusion: Appropriate health policy and strategy need to be taken to reduce the gender gap in LE and HLE in Oman.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".