Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40904919›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Investigation into the subjective well-being of older adults via confirmatory factor analysis and analytic hierarchy process-an empirical analysis based on CGSS2021 data.

Yingying Chen, Tianrui Cai, Ruiqin Tian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yingying Chen *School of Mathematics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.
Tianrui Cai *School of Mathematics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.
Ruiqin TianSchool of Mathematics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This paper examines the subjective well-being of older adults in China. Based on data from the China General Social Survey (CGSS2021), the agreement levels of 21 questions on the subjective well-being of older adults were extracted and analyzed. Methods: The 21 questions were categorized into positive and negative factors based on cluster analysis. For the 10 positive factors, the information entropy method was used to determine their weights and calculate the happiness scores of older adults. For the 11 negative factors, the unhappiness scores of older adults were calculated by the confirmatory factor analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Results: An average happiness score of 4.499 was obtained, of which the more influential factors were family income, personality control, and the natural environment. An average score of 3.062 was obtained, among them, the more influential factors are health status, family communication and body parts. Conclusions and recommendations: Overall, it shows that the subjective happiness of the Chinese older adults is strong and unhappiness is weak. Then we further find significant differences in the above scores of older adults with different socioeconomic status through one-way ANOVA. Based on the results of the study, we finally proposed targeted recommendations to improve the happiness feelings of older adults, including encouraging communication with family members and improving body parts.

Indexed as

HappinessPersonal SatisfactionAgedAged, 80 and overChinaFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and Questionnairesanalytic hierarchy processconfirmatory factor analysisinformation entropy methodolder adultssubjective well-being

Identifiers

PMID40904919
PMCPMC12401678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.