积极老龄化量化测量工具的比较研究

A comparative study of quantitative measurement tools for active aging

目的了解国内外积极老龄化量化测量工具,对比不同工具的指标构建、适用性及应用验证,为本土化积极老龄化测量工具的制订与完善提供科学依据。方法计算机检索PubMed、Web of Science、Elsevier、CNKI、WanFang Data和VIP数据库及世界卫生组织、欧盟委员会、联合国欧洲经济委员会等相关网站,检索时限均从2002年4月至2019年11月,由2名研究者按纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料,对获得的测量工具进行定性评价与比较。结果共纳入36个研究,涉及9个原创积极老龄化量化测量工具,泰国3个、中国2个、欧盟、俄罗斯、澳大利亚、芬兰各1个。不同工具的维度为2到3个不等,一级测量目标3~10项,测量条目指标11~177项。不同工具的维度及一级测量目标的构建主要基于WHO"积极老龄化"政策框架的健康、参与、安全三大支柱。除了2012AAQ-CHN(2012)和AAL-Thai(2016)两个工具缺失对安全目标的测定以外,其他工具的指标均对健康、参与、安全目标有测定。欧盟工具中出现对电子信息技术设备使用、志愿服务、参与政治活动、卫生保健服务获得及终身学习习惯测量5项具有时代特性的指标。基于欧盟原创工具的研究主要在欧洲、亚洲、美洲开展,已发表成果共20项,泰国2006年工具主要在亚洲地区开展并发表实证研究3项,泰国2014年工具主要在中国地区开展并发表了实证研究4项。结论 AAI-EU(2012)的指标设定最具时代特色、开展验证性研究最多,应用范围最广。对我国本土化积极老龄化测量工具的研发和改善可在基本维度、指标体系的构建方面借鉴和学习欧盟及其他代表性的测量工具。

Objectives To understand the quantitative measurement tools for active aging and compare the index construction, applicability and application of different tools domestically and abroad, so as to provide a scientific basis for the formulation and improvement of localized measurement tools for active aging. Methods We performed electronical searches on PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, and websites of WHO, European Commission, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe from April 2002 to November 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and conducted a qualitative analysis and comparison of the obtained measurement tools. Results A total of 36 researches were included,which involved 9 original active aging quantitative measurement tools. Specifically, 3 were from Thailand, 2 were from China, 1 was from the European Union, Russia, Australia and Finland, respectively. There were 2 to 3 dimensions of the tools, 3 to 10 items of primary measurement targets, and 11 to 177 items of measurement indicators. The construction of the dimension and first-level measurement goals were mainly based on the three pillars of health, participation, and security which composed WHO’s policy framework. The indicators of tools had measured the health, participation, and security targets except for the AAQ-CHN(2012) and AAL-Thai(2016) tools. Five age-specific indicators of the use of electronic information technology equipment, voluntary services, participation in political activities, access to health care services, and lifelong learning habits appeared in the EU tool. The AAI-EU’s empirical applications and related 20 studies had been published mainly in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. AAI-Thai(2006) and AAI-Thai(2014) were used in empirical researches in Asia and China, respectively, and the 3 rd and 4 th studies were published. Conclusions The indicators’ design of AAI-EU(2012) has the most contemporary characteristics, the most confirmatory research and widest application. The development of Chinese localized quantitative measurement tools should take advantage of the EU and other representative measurement tools.