Abstract
Background: Gender differences in life expectancy and societal roles have implications for a country's capacity to support its older population. Specifically, the longevity risk associated with longer life expectancy of women, with greater risk of morbidity entails different needs between genders in older age. We aimed to quantify gender differences in the ageing experience of older people in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries as a first step in identifying policy gaps and differences in the allocation of resources and social support for older men and women. Methods: We constructed a multidimensional Ageing Index to account for gender differences in societal ageing, using mostly gender-disaggregated latest available data between 2015 and 2019, for 18 OECD countries. Our Ageing Index is a weighted sum of scores for five domains, which consisted of various measures, that are important for societal ageing: wellbeing, productivity and engagement, equity, security, and cohesion. The construction of the domains and their relative weighting was determined by the Research Network on an Ageing Society, an interdisciplinary group of academics. We computed the overall index and domain scores (from 0 to 100) for each gender and compared these scores between genders and countries. Findings: In every country, gender differences in key domains of societal ageing favour men. Countries in northern Europe (ie, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway), the Netherlands, and Japan had high overall Index scores for both genders, whereas many eastern and southern European countries (eg, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia) performed less well. Countries with the largest gender difference in Index scores include the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy, whereas Ireland, Spain, and Poland had the smallest difference. Gender differences were present for the domains of productivity and engagement, security, and cohesion. Gender differences favoured men for domain productivity and engagement (mean 10·2, 95% CI 7·8–12·6; p<0·0001), security (10·3, 7·8–12·7; p<0·0001), and cohesion (21·1, 13·9–28·1; p<0·0001). Although the domains of wellbeing and equity showed more mixed results, they nonetheless showed a slight advantage for men. Interpretation: Our multidimensional index helps to identify specific gender differences along key domains of societal ageing in various OECD countries. Furthermore, the inter-country comparisons reveal those countries with more successful societal ageing, which could be instructive for policy makers. Funding: John A Hartford Foundation and the Singapore Ministry of Education.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | e460-e469 |
Journal | The Lancet Healthy Longevity |
Volume | 2 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Aug 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
Funding
The research was supported by the John A Hartford Foundation and the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE2018-T2–2–070). The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication, and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the OECD. We thank Eunice Tong and Jemima Koh (National University of Singapore, Singapore) for replicating the analysis and results. The corresponding author had full access to all of the data and the final responsibility to submit for publication. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and have not been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. The research was supported by the John A Hartford Foundation and the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE2018-T2–2–070). The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication, and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the OECD. We thank Eunice Tong and Jemima Koh (National University of Singapore, Singapore) for replicating the analysis and results. The corresponding author had full access to all of the data and the final responsibility to submit for publication. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and have not been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Eunice Tong and Jemima Koh | |
National Academy of Sciences | |
John A. Hartford Foundation | |
National University of Singapore | |
Ministry of Education - Singapore | MOE2018-T2–2–070 |
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Health(social science)
- Geriatrics and Gerontology
- Psychiatry and Mental health
- Family Practice