ArticleClinical interventions in aging2024
Measuring Active Ageing: A Scoping Review and the Applicability to the Situation in China.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relationship between health literacy and active and successful aging: a cross-sectional study of active aging service center.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Staying active, staying satisfied: how subjective well-being shapes ageing after retirement.BMC public health · 2026Article
- A scoping review of measurement tools and a content validity evaluation of the University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale (UJACAS).European journal of ageing · 2025Review
- Navigating the maze of active ageing measurement: untangling methodological and theoretical issues in the UJACAS questionnaire.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Review
- Enhancing active aging through exercise: a comparative study of high-intensity interval training and continuous aerobic training benefits.Frontiers in aging · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Ageing has become one of the major global public issues and active ageing has become a global goal. Accurate and reproducible assessment tools are a prerequisite for robust and reliable measurement of active ageing and policy formulation. However, a broad scoping review describing the characteristics and heterogeneity of assessment tools for active ageing is lacking. This study aims to comprehensively portray current active ageing assessment tools and their features. Methods: We conducted a scoping review, focusing on the Active Ageing Assessment Tool, and searched seven databases: CNKI, WanFang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Medline, and Proquest. The research process adhered to the methodological framework of Arkey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR specification. More so, we registered the research program with the Open Science Framework. Results: Ultimately, we included twenty-two pieces of literature. The development of the active ageing assessment tool predominantly occurred between 2012 and 2023, with a focus on foreign countries (16 studies). All included literature presented multidimensional Active ageing assessment tools. Eighteen studies examined active ageing assessment tools at the macro level, while four studies focused on the individual level. Also, fourteen out of the twenty-two studies were based on the World Health Organization's Theoretical Framework for Active Ageing. The literature contained only two active ageing assessment tools designed for specific subgroups of older people. Conclusion: Future development of active ageing assessment tools should integrate more comprehensive concepts and social theories of active ageing. Additionally, there is a need to explore active ageing measurement tools tailored for diverse subgroups of the older adults at various levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.