ArticleBMC medicine2026
Understanding Japan's mortality advantage: a comparison of mortality in independent and dependent older adults in Japan and Sweden.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA fundamental public health goal is that all individuals have the opportunity to reach old age with adequate care and support. Japan is the global leader in longevity, and understanding whether this advantage exists primarily in healthy older adults or those relying on long-term care (LTC) can reveal if it stems from a healthier population or more extensive, and potentially higher-quality, healthcare provision. This study examined Japan's mortality advantage by comparing life expectancy and death rates in Japan and Sweden across different levels of LTC.
methodsWe included the entire population aged 75 + in Sweden (n = 858,595) and nine Japanese municipalities (n = 334,873), categorizing individuals into three groups: no care, home care, and care home residence. We compared age-specific death rates, remaining life expectancy, and expected time spent in each LTC state. Finally, we quantified how much of the overall mortality differences could be explained by LTC state-specific mortality difference.
resultsJapanese older adults had lower death rates and longer life expectancy than Swedish counterparts, with more pronounced differences among individuals utilizing LTC. At age 75, total life expectancy was 12.0 vs. 11.7 years for men and 15.5 vs. 13.7 years for women in Japan and Sweden, respectively. Expected time without LTC was 9.8 vs. 9.6 years for men and 10.4 vs. 9.9 years for women. The difference (95% CI) in total life expectancy [men, 0.3 (0.2, 0.4); women, 1.8 (1.7, 1.9)] exceeded the difference in time without LTC [men, 0.2 (0.2, 0.3); women, 0.5 (0.4, 0.5)], particularly for women. Higher mortality in home care and care home populations in Sweden substantially increased Japan's advantage.
conclusionsOur findings show that Japan's longevity advantage in old age is primarily driven by lower mortality in the segment of the population utilizing LTC. This indicates that the overall advantage in life expectancy may not stem solely from a healthier population, but rather from more extensive, or possibly higher-quality, care, including life-sustaining treatments. However, since we were unable to control for differences in health status in the two populations, future studies should explore if the threshold for entering LTC is different in Sweden and Japan.
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.