481562 research-article2013
JAG32310.1177/0733464813481562Journal of Applied GerontologyCosco et al.
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor: On the Success of the Successful Aging Paradigm
Journal of Applied Gerontology 32(3) 275–276 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0733464813481562 jag.sagepub.com
Theodore D. Cosco1, Blossom C.M. Stephan2 and Carol Brayne1
In “Aging Populations’ Everyday Life Perspectives on Healthy Aging: New Insights for Policy and Strategies at the Local Level,” Naaldenberg, Vaandrager, and Leeuwis (2012) examine lay perspectives of the healthy aging concept, highlighting the many and varied ways in which laypersons experience aging well. However, laypersons are not the only group subject to the many and varied conceptualizations of aging well; researchers have been wrestling with naming conventions and operationalization issues for decades. The ease of labelling the presence of disease stands in stark contrast to the ambiguity of labelling positive states of aging. Within the medical field, specific diagnostic criteria are routinely applied within established protocols leading to determination of the presence or absence of disease. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but the overarching ability with which a state of disease or illness is described usually has a well-established pedigree. Conversely, when dealing with positive states of aging, current naming conventions used by researchers are ambiguous at best and contradictory at worst. Naaldenberg et al. (2012) acknowledge that healthy aging, their term of choice, is “used alongside related concepts such as active aging, positive aging, and successful aging” (p. 712). Lack of consensus definitions, generalizability, and practical applications for these terms inhibits research. 1University 2Newcastle
of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Corresponding author: Theodore D. Cosco, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on May 11, 2015
276
Journal of Applied Gerontology 32(3)
Definitions of aging well can vary dramatically, from quantitative biomedical models to subjective single-item measures (Bowling & Dieppe, 2005; Depp & Jeste, 2006). These terms have been used synonymously with, as complimentary processes to, and as constituent components of each other. The subjectivity in defining positive states of aging is cause for concern; this lack of consensus is both confusing and inhibitive, severely impeding crossstudy comparison. For researchers, producing results relevant only within the context of the original study is an inefficient use of resources and a detriment to collaborative, cross-cultural, and intergenerational studies. The connotations of each aging term (e.g. successful aging, healthy aging, robust aging, productive aging, active aging, positive aging, and optimal aging), are often broadened and/or retrofitted for the purposes at hand. Definitions researchers have used to describe positive states of aging have, as a result, digressed from the original meanings of these terms. Taking a step away from these niche definitions and examining the original denotations of these terms provides a more straightforward approach to their practical application. The development of standardized definitions of positive states of aging will be integral to conducting cross-study comparisons of aging well. Although the development of consensus definitions of these terms may not be imminent, taking a more parsimonious approach to their utilization by taking a step back to the original denotations of these terms may be a collective step in the right direction. References Bowling, A., & Dieppe, P. (2005). What is successful ageing and who should define it? British Medical Journal, 331(7531), 1548-1551. Depp, C. A., & Jeste, D. V. (2006). Definitions and predictors of successful aging: a comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(1), 6-20. doi: 10.1097/01.JGP.0000192501.03069.bc Naaldenberg, J., Vaandrager, M. K., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Aging populations’ everyday life perspectives on healthy aging: New insights for policy and strategies at the local level. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31, 711-733.
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on May 11, 2015
JAG32310.1177/0733464813481562Journal of Applied GerontologyCosco et al.
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor: On the Success of the Successful Aging Paradigm
Journal of Applied Gerontology 32(3) 275–276 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0733464813481562 jag.sagepub.com
Theodore D. Cosco1, Blossom C.M. Stephan2 and Carol Brayne1
In “Aging Populations’ Everyday Life Perspectives on Healthy Aging: New Insights for Policy and Strategies at the Local Level,” Naaldenberg, Vaandrager, and Leeuwis (2012) examine lay perspectives of the healthy aging concept, highlighting the many and varied ways in which laypersons experience aging well. However, laypersons are not the only group subject to the many and varied conceptualizations of aging well; researchers have been wrestling with naming conventions and operationalization issues for decades. The ease of labelling the presence of disease stands in stark contrast to the ambiguity of labelling positive states of aging. Within the medical field, specific diagnostic criteria are routinely applied within established protocols leading to determination of the presence or absence of disease. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but the overarching ability with which a state of disease or illness is described usually has a well-established pedigree. Conversely, when dealing with positive states of aging, current naming conventions used by researchers are ambiguous at best and contradictory at worst. Naaldenberg et al. (2012) acknowledge that healthy aging, their term of choice, is “used alongside related concepts such as active aging, positive aging, and successful aging” (p. 712). Lack of consensus definitions, generalizability, and practical applications for these terms inhibits research. 1University 2Newcastle
of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Corresponding author: Theodore D. Cosco, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on May 11, 2015
276
Journal of Applied Gerontology 32(3)
Definitions of aging well can vary dramatically, from quantitative biomedical models to subjective single-item measures (Bowling & Dieppe, 2005; Depp & Jeste, 2006). These terms have been used synonymously with, as complimentary processes to, and as constituent components of each other. The subjectivity in defining positive states of aging is cause for concern; this lack of consensus is both confusing and inhibitive, severely impeding crossstudy comparison. For researchers, producing results relevant only within the context of the original study is an inefficient use of resources and a detriment to collaborative, cross-cultural, and intergenerational studies. The connotations of each aging term (e.g. successful aging, healthy aging, robust aging, productive aging, active aging, positive aging, and optimal aging), are often broadened and/or retrofitted for the purposes at hand. Definitions researchers have used to describe positive states of aging have, as a result, digressed from the original meanings of these terms. Taking a step away from these niche definitions and examining the original denotations of these terms provides a more straightforward approach to their practical application. The development of standardized definitions of positive states of aging will be integral to conducting cross-study comparisons of aging well. Although the development of consensus definitions of these terms may not be imminent, taking a more parsimonious approach to their utilization by taking a step back to the original denotations of these terms may be a collective step in the right direction. References Bowling, A., & Dieppe, P. (2005). What is successful ageing and who should define it? British Medical Journal, 331(7531), 1548-1551. Depp, C. A., & Jeste, D. V. (2006). Definitions and predictors of successful aging: a comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(1), 6-20. doi: 10.1097/01.JGP.0000192501.03069.bc Naaldenberg, J., Vaandrager, M. K., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Aging populations’ everyday life perspectives on healthy aging: New insights for policy and strategies at the local level. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31, 711-733.
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on May 11, 2015
