successful ageing extra reading

Question 1

Rowe & Kahn 1998 strengths

Answer 1

• Young et al., 2009: paradigm shift from disease to function, emphasising agency that older adults can take steps to age well
• empirical basis- grounded in findings from the McArthur Foundation study of Ageing and the findings are still relevant today (Seeman et al., 2010)

Question 2

Rowe & Kahn 1998 limitations

Answer 2

• Martinson & Berridge: medicalises ageing and marginalises those ageing with illness or disability
• Holstein & Minkler, 2003: largely omits the influence of structural determinants e.g. income, educattion- risks blaming individuals for not ageing successfully when systemic barriers limit their ability to meet the models criteria

Question 3

Wong 1998 strengths

Answer 3

• MacKinlay, 2002: holistic and integrative perspective and aligns with contemporary calls for holistic approaches in gerontology and palliative care
• Puchalski, 2002: spirituality is associated with improved coping especially facing chronic illnes, emphasising the models capacity for resilience through meaning

Question 4

Wong 1998 limitations

Answer 4

-Holstein & Minkler, 2003: overemphasis on individual responsibility and inadvertently promotes an individualistic narrative that ignores social determinants of health
- Torres, 2003: emphasises that culturally constructed notions and spirituality require localised understanding to avoid ethnocentric bias

Question 5

Bowling & Dieppe, 2005 strengths

Answer 5

• Holstein & Minkler, 2003: consider the social determinants of ageing which makes it a fair concept of successful ageing
• Cosco et al., 2013: incorporates subjective indicators e.g. perceived health which better capture how individuals experience successful ageing

Question 6

Bowling & Dieppe, 2005 limitations

Answer 6

• Cosco et al., 2014: inclusion of subjective criteria makes it difficult to compare outcomes across populations or to develop concrete public health targets
• Calasanti & Slevin, 2006: lacks intersectional analysis which risks reinforcing dominant norms and exclude marginalising voices

Question 7

Carstensen’s socioemotional selectivity theory strengths

Answer 7

• Charles & Cartensen, 2010: explains age related positivity and emotional regulation, older adults use emotion regulation strategies more effectively than younger adults
• Fung, Cartensen & Lutz (1999) demonstrated similar goal preference patterns in both American and Chinese older adults, supporting SSTs cross cultural applicability

Question 8

Carstensen’s socioemotional selectivity theory limitations

Answer 8

• Hooman & Kiyak, 2011: socioeconomic status and health inequalities can profoundly influence social interaction patterns regardless of perceived time
• SST assumes older adults have the autonomy to curate their social environments which is not always feasible especially for this in institutional care or limited mobility