Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Successful Aging and Its Discontents: A Systematic Review of the Social Gerontology Literature

Successful Aging and Its Discontents: A Systematic Review of the Social Gerontology Literature Purpose of the Study:The purpose of this study was to analyze the range of critiques of successful aging models and the suggestions for improvement as expressed in the social gerontology literature.Design and Methods:We conducted a systematic literature review using the following criteria: journal articles retrieved in the Abstracts in Social Gerontology, published 1987–2013, successful aging/ageing in the title or text (n = 453), a critique of successful aging models as a key component of the article. Sixty-seven articles met the criteria. Qualitative methods were used to identify key themes and inductively configure meanings across the range of critiques.Results:The critiques and remedies fell into 4 categories. The Add and Stir group suggested a multidimensional expansion of successful aging criteria and offered an array of additions. The Missing Voices group advocated for adding older adults’ subjective meanings of successful aging to established objective measures. The Hard Hitting Critiques group called for more just and inclusive frameworks that embrace diversity, avoid stigma and discrimination, and intervene at structural contexts of aging. The New Frames and Names group presented alternative ideal models often grounded in Eastern philosophies.Implications:The vast array of criteria that gerontologists collectively offered to expand Rowe and Kahn’s original successful model is symptomatic of the problem that a normative model is by definition exclusionary. Greater reflexivity about gerontology’s use of “successful aging” and other normative models is needed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Gerontologist Oxford University Press

Successful Aging and Its Discontents: A Systematic Review of the Social Gerontology Literature

The Gerontologist , Volume 55 (1) – Feb 9, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/successful-aging-and-its-discontents-a-systematic-review-of-the-social-HXymMxGmUC

References (81)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
0016-9013
eISSN
1758-5341
DOI
10.1093/geront/gnu037
pmid
24814830
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose of the Study:The purpose of this study was to analyze the range of critiques of successful aging models and the suggestions for improvement as expressed in the social gerontology literature.Design and Methods:We conducted a systematic literature review using the following criteria: journal articles retrieved in the Abstracts in Social Gerontology, published 1987–2013, successful aging/ageing in the title or text (n = 453), a critique of successful aging models as a key component of the article. Sixty-seven articles met the criteria. Qualitative methods were used to identify key themes and inductively configure meanings across the range of critiques.Results:The critiques and remedies fell into 4 categories. The Add and Stir group suggested a multidimensional expansion of successful aging criteria and offered an array of additions. The Missing Voices group advocated for adding older adults’ subjective meanings of successful aging to established objective measures. The Hard Hitting Critiques group called for more just and inclusive frameworks that embrace diversity, avoid stigma and discrimination, and intervene at structural contexts of aging. The New Frames and Names group presented alternative ideal models often grounded in Eastern philosophies.Implications:The vast array of criteria that gerontologists collectively offered to expand Rowe and Kahn’s original successful model is symptomatic of the problem that a normative model is by definition exclusionary. Greater reflexivity about gerontology’s use of “successful aging” and other normative models is needed.

Journal

The GerontologistOxford University Press

Published: Feb 9, 2015

There are no references for this article.