Poverty, Income, and Unemployment as Determinants of Life Expectancy: Empirical Evidence from Panel Data of Thirteen Malaysian States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled TAFRAN ◽  
Makmor TUMIN ◽  
Ahmad Farid OSMAN
Keyword(s):  
Panel Data ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Cross Sections ◽  
Health Spending ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Socioeconomic Variables ◽  
Life Expectancy At Birth ◽  
Total Life Expectancy ◽  
Official Sources ◽  
Total Life

Background: The primary indicator of public health, which all nations aim to prolong, is life expectancy at birth. Uncovering its socioeconomic determinants is key to extending life expectancy. This study examined the determinants of life expectancy in Malaysia. Methods: This observational study employs secondary data from various official sources of 12 states and one federal territory in Malaysia (2002-2014). Panel data of 78 observations (13 cross-sections at six points in time) were used in multivariate, fixed-effect, regressions to estimate the effects of socioeconomic variables on life expectancy at birth for male, female and both-gender. Results: Poverty and income significantly determine female, male, and total life expectancies. Unemployment significantly determines female and total life expectancies, but not male. Income inequality and public spending on health (as a percentage of total health spending) do not significantly determine life expectancy. The coefficients of the multivariate regressions suggest that a 1% reduction in poverty, 1% reduction in unemployment, and around USD 23.20 increase in household monthly income prolong total life expectancy at birth by 17.9, 72.0, and 16.3 d, respectively. The magnitudes of the effects of the socioeconomic variables on life expectancy vary somewhat by gender. Conclusion: Life expectancy in Malaysia is higher than the world average and higher than that in some developing countries in the region. However, it is far lower than the advanced world. Reducing poverty and unemployment and increasing income are three effective channels to enhance longevity.

scholarly journals Neighborhood Disadvantage and Active, Disabled and Total Life Expectancy Among Community-living Older Persons

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Gill ◽  
Emma X. Zang ◽  
Terrence E. Murphy ◽  
Linda Leo-Summers ◽  
Evelyne A. Gahbauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Older Persons ◽  
Neighborhood Disadvantage ◽  
Community Living ◽  
Remaining Life ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Total Life Expectancy ◽  
Total Life

AbstractBackgroundNeighborhood disadvantage is a novel social determinant of health that could adversely affect the functional well-being and longevity of older persons. We evaluated whether estimates of active, disabled and total life expectancy differ on the basis of neighborhood disadvantage after accounting for individual-level socioeconomic characteristics and other prognostic factors.MethodsWe used data on 754 community-living older persons from South Central Connecticut, who completed monthly assessments of disability from 1998 to 2020. Scores on the area deprivation index were dichotomized at the 80th state percentile to distinguish neighborhoods that were disadvantaged (81-100) from those that were not (1-80).ResultsWithin 5-year age increments from 70 to 90, active and total life expectancy were consistently lower in participants from neighborhoods that were disadvantaged versus not disadvantaged, and these differences persisted and remained statistically significant after adjustment for individual-level race/ethnicity, education, income, and other prognostic factors. At age 70, adjusted estimates (95% CI) for active and total life expectancy (in years) were 12.3 (11.5-13.1) and 15.0 (13.8-16.1) in the disadvantaged group and 14.2 (13.5-14.7) and 16.7 (15.9-17.5) in the non-disadvantaged group. At each age, participants from disadvantaged neighborhoods spent a greater percentage of their projected remaining life disabled, relative to those from non-disadvantaged neighborhoods, with adjusted values (SE) ranging from 17.7 (0.8) vs. 15.3 (0.5) at age 70 to 55.0 (1.7) vs. 48.1 (1.3) at age 90.ConclusionsLiving in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with lower active and total life expectancy and a greater percentage of projected remaining life disabled.

scholarly journals Inequalities in Life Expectancy With Frailty Among Brazilian Older Adults: A Multistate Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana Correia Alves ◽  
Flávia Cristina Drumond Andrade ◽  
Ligiana Pires Corona ◽  
Jair Licio Ferreira Santos ◽  
Yeda Aparecida De Oliveira Duarte
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Educational Achievement ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Healthy Life ◽  
Public Health Policies ◽  
Frailty Status ◽  
Total Life Expectancy ◽  
Aging Societies ◽  
Total Life

Abstract Background and Objectives Frailty is considered one of the major conditions faced by aging societies. Little has been reported about the effect of becoming frail on life expectancy among older adults in developing countries. The aim was to estimate total life expectancy and life expectancy with or without frailty by age, sex, and education among older adults in Brazil. Data and Methods:  The study was developed based on information provided by the Health, Well-being, and Aging (SABE) Study. The sample included 1,399 older adults (≥60 years old) followed up from 2006 to 2010. Frailty status was classified according to the Fried criteria. Additional variables include age (in years), gender, and years of education. Estimates of total life expectancy, frailty-free life expectancy, and frailty life expectancy were obtained using the multistate life table method. Results At the baseline, the proportion of individuals with frailty was 13.7% and participants had, on average, 4.0 years of education. Men had more years of education than women (4.6 vs. 3.7, p < .001). Older adults with higher education live fewer years with frailty. Compared with older adults with no education, those with 6 years of education have higher frailty-free life expectancy. At age 70, men with no education expect to live 9.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.8, 10.4) without frailty compared with 10.6 years (95% CI = 9.4, 11.8) among those with 6 years of education. Among women age 70, frailty-free life expectancy reaches 11.7 years (95% CI = 10.6, 12.8) among those with no education, but 13.9 years (95% CI = 12.5, 15.3) among those with 6 years. Implications Given the recent changes in educational achievement in Brazil, we believe that educational policies are powerful ways in addressing inequalities in healthy life expectancy. Public health policies aimed at avoiding the development of frailty among elderly at risk should be encouraged.

scholarly journals Age at Menopause, Cause-Specific Mortality and Total Life Expectancy

Epidemiology ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlies E. Ossewaarde ◽  
Michiel L. Bots ◽  
Andr?? L. M. Verbeek ◽  
Petra H. M. Peeters ◽  
Yolanda van der Graaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Age At Menopause ◽  
Total Life Expectancy ◽  
Specific Mortality ◽  
Total Life

scholarly journals Healthy lifestyle and life expectancy free of chronic diseases

JMS SKIMS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-56
Author(s):  
Peerzada Umar Farooq Baba ◽  
Adil Hafeez Wani
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Chronic Diseases ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Lifestyle Factors ◽  
Total Life Expectancy ◽  
Lifestyle Measures ◽  
Disease Free ◽  
Total Life

The average life expectancy in the world has increased substantially in the past few decades. Modifiable lifestyle factors including smoking, physical activity, alcohol intake, body weight, and diet quality affect both total life expectancy and incidence of chronic diseases. Few studies have comprehensively examined how a combination of multiple lifestyle factors may relate to life expectancy free from major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. A Harvard team examined the effect of healthy lifestyle factors on life expectancy free of chronic diseases, using data from up to 34 years of follow-up in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) (1980-2014; n=73 196) and 28 years of follow-up in the Health Professions Follow-up Study (HPFS)(1986-2014;n=38 366). A healthy lifestyle score based on information on five lifestyle factors—diet, smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and body mass index (BMI) was derived. Five low-risk lifestyle factors included: never smoking, body mass index 18.5-24.9, moderate to vigorous physical activity (≥30 minutes/day), moderate alcohol intake (women: 5-15 g/day; men 5-30 g/day), and a higher diet quality score (upper 40%). Women who met all the healthful lifestyle measures had an additional 10.7 years of disease-free life compared with women who met no healthful lifestyle measures. For men, the number was 7.6 additional disease-free years. So it was concluded that a healthier lifestyle was associated with an increased total life expectancy and life expectancy free of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. Findings suggest that the promotion of a healthy lifestyle would help to reduce healthcare burdens. Public policies for improving food and the physical environment conducive to adopting a healthy diet and lifestyle are critical to improving life expectancy, especially life expectancy free of major chronic diseases. Source: BMJ 2020; 368:l6669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6669

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document