Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Successful Aging and the Influencing Factors in the Korean Elderly: Focused on Family Support

Article information

Res Community Public Health Nurs. 2015;26(4):372-379
Publication date (electronic) : 2015 December 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2015.26.4.372
SongYi Han, Soon-Nyung Yun
College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Corresponding author: Han, Song Yi. College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 28 Yongon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-799, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8456, fabulousong@snu.ac.kr
Received 2015 August 28; Revised 2015 December 09; Accepted 2015 December 17.

Abstract

Purpose

This research was conducted to examine the successful aging and identify factors influencing successful aging in the Korean elderly.

Methods

The subjects were 4,507 elders and data were collected from the 4th Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing in 2012. The data were analyzed using frequencies, weighted percentage, χ2 test, and logistic regression.

Results

The results of this study showed that 19.6% of the participants were categorized to successful aging. The domains of the absence of disease and disability and maintaining physical and mental functioning showed a high rate of achievement, while the domain of active engagement with life showed a low rate of achievement compared to others. Successful aging was influenced by gender, age, subjective economic status, subjective health status, and family support, particularly spouse's support.

Conclusion

Intervention programs to increase the prevalence of successful aging are required. Especially programs for strengthening spouse's support and enhancing subjective health status are required.

Keywords: Elderly; Aging; Family; Nursing

References

1. Statistics Korea. 2014 social indicaters in Korea [Internet] Seoul: Statistics Korea; 2015. cited 2015 March 27. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=334501.
2. Kim DB. The study on the development of the Korean elderly's successful aging scale. Korean J Soc Welf 2008;60(1):211–231.
3. Araujo L, Ribeiro O, Teixeira L, Paul C. Successful aging at 100 years: The relevance of subjectivity and psychological resources. Int Psychogeriatr 2015;Epub.
4. Cosco TD, Prina AM, Perales J, Stephan BC, Brayne C. Operational definitions of successful aging: A systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr 2014;26(3):373–381. 10.1017/S1041610213002287.
5. Sohn ES. Development of scale on Selection, Optimization, Compensation (SOC) model as successful aging strategies of Korean elderly. J Korean Gerontol Soc 2011;31(2):381–400.
6. Baltes PB, Baltes MM. Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 397.
7. Fisher BJ, Specht DK. Successful aging and creativity in later life. J Aging Stud 1999;13(4):457–472.
8. Flood M. A mid-range nursing theory of successful aging. J Theory Constr Test 2005;9(2):35–39.
9. Rowe JW, Kahn RL. Successful aging. Gerontologist 1997;37(4):433–440.
10. Ryff CD. Beyond ponce de leon and life satisfaction: New directions in quest of successful ageing. Int J Behav Dev 1989;12(1):35–55. 10.1177/016502548901200102.
11. Kim KH, Kim JH. Influences of life satisfaction on successful aging -focusing on the elderly having partners. Korean J Fam Welf 2008;13(2):87–106.
12. Lee SJ, Song MS. Successful aging of Korean older adults based on Rowe and Kahn's model: A comparative study according to the use of community senior facilities. J Korean Acad Nurs 2015;45(2):231–239. 10.4040/jkan.2015.45.2.231.
13. Han SJ, Han JS, Moon YS. Factors influencing successful aging in elders. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs 2009;21(4):423–434.
14. Jeong YJ, Yu NY, Kim BA, Shin HJ, Chong YS. A meta-analysis on variables related with successful aging. J Korean Gerontol Soc 2014;34(4):781–797.
15. Young Y, Frick KD, Phelan EA. Can successful aging and chronic illness coexist in the same individual? A multidimensional concept of successful aging. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2009;10(2):87–92. 10.1016/j.jamda.2008.11.003.
16. Depp CA, Jeste DV. Definitions and Predictors of Successful Aging: A Comprehensive Review of Larger Quantitative Studies. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;14(1):6–20.
17. Shin YH, Lee HJ. Factors associated with successful aging of Korean older people living in a city. J Korean Gerontol Soc 2009;29(4):1327–1340.
18. Kim HS. An effect of elderly volunteer participation to a successful aging. Korean J Local Gov Adm Stud 2013;27(2):419–442.
19. Sung HY, Cho HS. A study of successful aging model: Using the components of Rowe & Kahn. J Korean Gerontol Soc 2005;26(1):105–123.
20. An JS, Chong YS, Jeong YJ, Seo SG, Cooney TM. Critical aspirations from studies of successful aging. Korean J Dev Psychol 2011;24(3):35–54.
21. Kim EJ. Accessing factor structure and construct validity of the successful aging inventory. J Korean Acad Nurs 2013;43(4):568–578. 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.4.568.
22. Korea Employment Information Service. Korean longitudinal study of ageing [Internet] Seoul: Korea Employment Information Service; 2012. cited 2015 August 5. Available from: http://survey.keis.or.kr/ENLCTGO01N.do?mnucd=cfsaklosa1.
23. Oh S, Ko Y. Activities of daily living, depression, and selfrated health and related factors in Korean elderly: Focused on socioeconomic status and family support. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs 2015;26(2):140–149. 10.12799/jkachn.2015.26.2.140.
24. Young Y, Fan M-Y, Parrish JM, Frick KD. Validation of a Novel Successful Aging Construct. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2009;10(5):314–322.
25. Strawbridge WJ, Wallhagen MI, Cohen RD. Successful aging and well-being: Self-rated compared with Rowe and Kahn. Gerontologist 2002;42(6):727–733.
26. Jung KH, Oh YH, Lee YK, Son CK, Park BM, Lee SY, et al. Research on actual conditions of elderly in 2011. Policy Report Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare. Korea Institute for Health and Socail Affairs; 2012. April. Report No.: 11-1352000-000672-12.
27. Irwin M, Artin KH, Oxman MN. Screening for depression in the older adult: criterion validity of the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Arch Intern Med 1999;159(15):1701–1704.
28. Chung SD, Koo MJ. Factors influencing depression: A comparison among babyboomers, the pre-elderly, and the elderly. J Welf Aged 2011;52:305–324.
29. Bae JM. An illustrated guide to medical statistics using SPSS Seoul: Hannarae; 2012. p. 367.
30. Chang JY, Boo KC. Self-rated health status of Korean older people: An introduction for international comparative studies. Korea J Popul Stud 2007;30(2):45–69.

Article information Continued

© 2015 Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Table 1

The Difference of Successful Aging by Characteristics of Subjects

Variables Characteristics Total Successful aging Usual aging χ2 p
n (%) n (%) n (%)
Gender Male 2,028 (45.00) 637 (72.30) 1,391 (38.36) 329.94 <.001
Female 2,479 (55.00) 244 (27.70) 2,235 (61.64)
Age (year) 65~74 2,676 (59.36) 731 (82.88) 1,945 (53.64) 251.42 <.001
≥75 1,831 (40.64) 151 (17.12) 1,681 (46.35)
Education No education 993 (22.03) 91 (10.33) 902 (24.98) 122.25 <.001
Elementary school 1,566 (34.74) 283 (32.12) 1,283 (35.38)
≥Middle school 1,948 (43.22) 507 (57.55) 1,441 (39.74)
Subjective economic status Good 1,221 (27.10) 347 (39.39) 874 (24.11) 157.03 <.001
Usual 2,206 (48.96) 450 (51.08) 1,756 (48.44)
Bad 1,079 (23.94) 84 (9.53) 995 (27.45)
Subjective health status Healthy 863 (19.15) 310 (35.18) 553 (15.25) 293.34 <.001
Usual 1,894 (42.02) 423 (48.01) 1,471 (40.57)
Unhealthy 1,750 (38.83) 148 (16.80) 1,602 (44.18)
Family support Supported spouse 2,364 (52.45) 639 (72.45) 1,725 (47.59) 199.30 <.001
Unsupported spouse 802 (17.79) 134 (15.19) 668 (18.42)
No spouse 1,341 (29.75) 109 (12.36) 1,232 (33.99)
Supported children 2,236 (49.61) 423 (47.96) 1,813 (50.01) 48.40 <.001
Unsupported children 669 (14.84) 76 (8.62) 593 (16.36)
No children 1,602 (35.54) 383 (43.42) 1,219 (33.63)

%: Weighted %.

Table 2

The Proportion of Successful Aging (N=4,507)

Domain n (%)
Absence of diseases 3,590 (79.66)
Physical & mental function 4,041 (89.66)
Active engagement 987 (21.89)
Successful aging 882 (19.56)

Table 3

Influencing Factors of Subjectives' Characteristics on Successful Aging

Variables Categories Successful aging (n=882)
OR 95% CI p
Gender Male 1.00
Female 0.29 0.25~0.36 <.001
Age (year) 65~74 1.00
≥75 0.33 0.26~0.40 <.001
Education No education 1.00
Elementary 1.02 0.77~1.35 .887
≥Middle school 0.77 0.58~1.06 .073
Subjective economic status Bad 1.00
Usual 1.86 1.42~2.44 <.001
good 2.12 1.58~2.87 <.001
Subjective health status Unhealthy 1.00
Usual 2.02 1.63~2.52 <.001
healthy 3.11 2.44~3.96 <.001
Family support No spouse 1.00
Unsupported spouse 1.43 1.05~1.94 .023
Supported spouse 1.60 1.24~2.08 <.001
No children 1.00
Unsupported children 1.04 0.76~1.42 .810
Supported children 1.08 0.90~1.30 .388
Likelihood ratio test χ2=757.35, df=12, p<.001
Goodness-of-fit test: Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2=7.03, df=8, p=.533
Correct Prediction (%) 81.52
Nagelkerke R2 .25

OR=Odds ratio; CI=Confidence interval.