ArticlePopulation health metrics2026
Why healthy life expectancy estimates diverge: insights from survey-based, administrative, and model-based metrics across Japanese prefectures, 2001-2019: a comparative ecological study.
Article in Population health metrics, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthy life expectancy (HALE) can be measured using different approaches, yet estimates may diverge. Understanding divergence sources could help identify which health dimensions current systems capture or miss. However, systematic subnational comparisons remain scarce.
methodsWe conducted a comparative ecological study across Japan's 47 prefectures from 2001 to 2019. Three Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) metrics-disability-free life expectancy based on activity limitation (DFLE-AL) and life expectancy in subjective health (LE-SH) derived from national surveys, and disability-free life expectancy based on activities of daily living (DFLE-ADL) derived from long-term care insurance records-were obtained from MHLW. Model-based HALE from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2023 Study was extracted for corresponding years. We assessed cross-sectional concordance and examined associations with disease burden, risk factors, and socioeconomic indicators using fixed-effects panel regression.
resultsOver 2001-2019, DFLE-AL and LE-SH correlated with GBD HALE among males (r = 0.33 to 0.65) but weakly among females (r = - 0.11 to 0.32); DFLE-ADL showed concordance for both sexes (r = 0.66 to 0.96). GBD HALE exceeded MHLW estimates in females (0.53 years for DFLE-AL, 0.23 for LE-SH) but not males (- 0.18, - 0.14). In fixed-effects analysis of MHLW-minus-GBD differences, mental disorders showed negative associations with DFLE-AL and LE-SH differences among males; high BMI and musculoskeletal disorders showed positive associations with DFLE-AL differences. Among females, population ageing showed positive associations with DFLE-AL, LE-SH, and DFLE-ADL differences.
conclusionsMHLW metrics and GBD HALE capture complementary health dimensions and should not be treated as interchangeable. The consistent sex difference in concordance indicates that divergence between HALE metrics reflects differences in which health dimensions are emphasised-self-reported health states, objectively assessed functional status, or disease-based disability modelling-rather than a single, uniform construct of population health.
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.