Categorical approach to define old age by biological ages and their adaptational vulnerabilities falls into ageism, for the boundary of aging constantly changed because of longevity. Old age should be understood in developmental perspectives with proactive and meaning-making view of life. Old age is indeed an active developmental process for fuller, up-graded and more matured conditions despite obstacles due to biological aging. It is a challenge for change of old self upsetting old beliefs, and to make meanings to new ideas and patterns. Thus old age welcomes new experiences in which hidden capabilities are found and materialized. They realize the rights to refuse, choose and organize with increased sensitivities on life, self and conditions for their growth. This challenge against risks and for openness with wisdom of experiences lead life of an old age to be creative. Creativity sets off old people to advantage.
Ageism ; Aging ; Creativity ; Human Rights ; Longevity

PURPOSE: This study was to examine the level of aging knowledge, family strengths and ageism in addition to identify the influence of ageism among nursing students. METHODS: The participants were 235 nursing students at a university. Data were collected from May 14, to June 8, 2018. Data were analyzed with t-test, One-way ANOVA, Pearson's correlation coefficient and stepwise multiple regression using the SPSS/WIN 22 program. RESULTS: Average score in ageism was 41.41±7.65, indicating the moderate to severe level of ageism. Ageism of nursing students was negatively correlated with ageing knowledge and family strengths. The significant predictors for ageism in nursing students were experience of living with grandparents (β=−.21, p=.001), family strengths (β=−.20, p=.002), ageing knowledge (β=−.15, p=.022), grade (β=.13, p=.040). CONCLUSION: Based on these results, it is necessary to develop and apply an educational program to improve the awareness of ageism among nursing students.
Ageism* ; Aging ; Grandparents ; Humans ; Nursing* ; Students, Nursing*

BACKGROUND: This research is an exploratory study that is based on previous studies focusing on relationship between the doctors and the elderly cancer patients; moreover, the research focuses on the doctors' negative attitudes and discriminative behaviors towards the elderly cancer patients so that we may be able to suggest the ways to decrease the ageism. METHODS: Qualitative method and quantitative method were applied sequently. In this research, we practiced in-depth interviews with 8 doctors and then the surveys with 274 doctors. The in-depth interview questions were categorized depending on meaningful testimonies and the survey data were analyzed in the descriptive statistic analysis and paired t-test using PASW statistics 18. RESULTS: Through the in-depth interviews, the following is observed: the doctors rarely notify the elderly cancer patients directly; the family members of patients avoids the doctors to do so; and the doctors even show different attitudes or discriminatory actions to the elderly. Based on the in-depth interview results, the questions on notifying methods of the diagnosis and how to explain for treatment were developed and performed as a survey. Through the survey, only 8.4% of the doctors reported they directly notify the elderly cancer patient; moreover, they also reported they provide less information on treatment, side-effects, prognosis, and medical cost to the elderly than the middle-aged. CONCLUSIONS: This research not only discovered the presence of discrimination towards the elderly cancer patients but also suggested the causes of it. In order to resolve the phenomenon, doctors must consider individualized difference and variability of physiological function and should be aware of the psychological change after the cancer diagnosis to better communicate with them. Additionally, the social family culture which overprotects the elderly must be changed.
Aged* ; Ageism* ; Diagnosis* ; Disclosure* ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Humans ; Methods ; Prognosis

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study were to compare working condition, socioeconomic status, and health status between elderly and non-elderly workers and to examine the influencing factors of health status according to age groups. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of data extracted from the 2014 Korean Working Conditions Survey. For the present analysis, 15,980 elderly workers over the age of 55 and 32,037 non-elderly workers under the age of 55 were selected. RESULTS: The prevalence of subjective unhealthy status and poor mental health were significantly higher among the elderly workers than the non-elderly workers. The elderly workers were more likely to have lower level of education and income than the non-elderly workers. They also reported less support from colleagues and managers, however, have more decision authority. Among the elderly workers, long working hours, awkward posture, physical environmental risks, quantitative demand, decision authority, social support, age discrimination, education level, and income level were significant predictors of subjective health status or mental health. CONCLUSION: For keeping elderly workers healthy and productive, work environment needs to become more age-friendly. An age-friendly workplace may include: accommodative support, workers' participation, minimization of environment risk, etc.
Aged* ; Ageism ; Diagnostic Self Evaluation ; Education ; Humans ; Mental Health ; Posture ; Prevalence ; Social Class* ; Socioeconomic Factors

BACKGROUND: Around the globe, discrimination has emerged as a social issue requiring serious consideration. From the perspective of public health, the impact of discrimination on the health of affected individuals is a subject of great importance. On the other hand, subjective well-being is a key indicator of an individual's physical, mental, and social health. The present study aims to analyze the relationship between Korean employed workers' subjective health and their exposure to perceived discrimination. METHODS: The Fourth Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS, 2014) was conducted on a representative sample of the economically active population aged 15 years or older, who were either employees or self-employed at the time of interview. After removing inconsistent data, 32,984 employed workers were examined in this study. The data included general and occupational characteristics, perceived discrimination, and well-being. Well-being was measured through the WHO-Five index (1998 version). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between perceived discrimination and well-being. RESULT: As a group, employed workers who were exposed to discrimination had a significantly higher likelihood of “poor well-being” than their counterparts who were not exposed to discrimination. More specifically, the workers exposed to age discrimination had an odds ratio(OR) of 1.51 (95% CI: 1.36–1.68), workers exposed to discrimination based on educational attainment had an OR of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.26–1.61), and workers exposed to discrimination based on employment type had an OR of 1.68 (95% CI: 1.48–1.91) with respect to poor well-being. Furthermore, workers exposed to a greater number of discriminatory incidents were also at a higher risk of “poor well-being” than their counterparts who were exposed to fewer such incidents. More specifically, the workers with three exposures to discrimination had an OR of 2.60 (95% CI: 1.92–3.53), the workers with two such exposures had an OR of 1.69 (95% CI: 1.44–1.99), and the workers with one such exposure had an OR of 1.32 (95% CI: 1.20–1.45). CONCLUSION: The present study found that discrimination based on age, educational attainment, or employment type put workers at a higher risk of “poor well-being,” and that the greater the exposure to discrimination, the higher the risk of poor well-being.
Ageism ; Diagnostic Self Evaluation ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Employment ; Hand ; Logistic Models ; Public Health

BACKGROUND: Presenteeism, a concept that has recently undergone active study, is the act of attending work while sick. This study investigates the association between presenteeism and various psychosocial factors within workplaces. METHODS: This study analyzed 29246 wage earners from the third Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS, 2011) data using the logistic regression analysis to investigate the association between presenteeism and various psychosocial factors within workplaces. RESULTS: Among the 29246 wage earners, 6347 (21.7 %) showed presenteeism. Those who experienced age discrimination at work (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.77: 95 % CI 1.56–2.00), educational background discrimination (aOR 1.35: 95 % CI 1.22–1.51), regional discrimination (aOR 1.55: 95 % CI 1.31–1.83), sexual discrimination (aOR 1.65: 95 % CI 1.41–1.94), employment type discrimination (aOR 2.13: 95 % CI 1.89–2.40), physical violence (aOR 1.92: 95 % CI 1.45–2.55), sexual harassment (aOR 2.90: 95 % CI 2.01–4.19), job insecurity (aOR 1.36: 95 % CI 1.18–1.56), work–life imbalance (aOR 1.38: 95 % CI 1.29–1.47), low job satisfaction (aOR 2.04: 95 % CI 1.91–2.17), no colleague support (aOR 1.11: 95 % CI 1.02–1.21), job stress (aOR 1.89: 95 % CI 1.76–2.02), emotional labor (aOR 1.50: 95 % CI 1.41–1.60), high work intensity (aOR 1.31: 95 % CI 1.23–1.38), and 3 groups of job strain that are passive group (aOR 1.09: 95 % CI 1.00–1.18), active group (aOR 1.39: 95 % CI 1.28–1.51), and high strain group (aOR 1.35: 95 % CI 1.24–1.46) showed an increased risk of presenteeism compared to their respective counterparts (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The study results confirmed the association between presenteeism and various psychosocial factors within workplaces. Considering that presenteeism negatively affects productivity and the mental and physical health of individuals, managing various psychosocial factors within workplaces is proposed to reduce presenteeism.
Ageism ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Efficiency ; Employment ; Job Satisfaction ; Logistic Models ; Odds Ratio ; Physical Abuse ; Presenteeism* ; Psychology* ; Salaries and Fringe Benefits ; Sexual Harassment

PURPOSE: This study was done to identify the factors involved in ageism in nurses.METHODS: The participants in this study were 178 general hospital nurses. Data were collected in March 2019 using self-report questionnaires, and were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, and stepwise multiple linear regression.RESULTS: The total score for ageism was 39.75±5.44 out of a maximum of 72. Ageism had a statistically significant relationship with contact experience (r=-.47, p < .001), attitude (r=.40 p < .001), and aging anxiety (r=.35 p < .001). The determining factors affecting ageism were contact experience (β=-.45, p < .001), attitude(β=.20, p=.002), work place (β=.22, p < .001), marital status (β=.21, p < .001), geriatric nursing preference (β=.18, p=.006), geriatric education (β=.17, p=.006), and aging anxiety (β=.14, p=.041). The explanation power of these variables was 39%.CONCLUSION: The results suggest that contact experience with elders had the largest influence on ageism in nurses. Therefore, it is necessary to develop tailored education programs by hospital type to increase positive contact experience and promote understanding of older patients in acute care settings. Furthermore, the importance of the perception of ageism needs to be highlighted in nursing education and continuing education for nurses.
Ageism ; Aging ; Anxiety ; Education ; Education, Continuing ; Education, Nursing ; Geriatric Nursing ; Hospitals, General ; Humans ; Linear Models ; Marital Status ; Workplace

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are widely used to approve the efficacy and discover adverse reactions of new drugs. However, there has been much concern about the unjustified exclusion of the older adults in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to assess ageism in clinical trials and to find solution to any discovered discrimination. METHODS: An online questionnaire was completed by 1,650 experts including doctors, pharmaceutical staff, and contract research organization members. An offline inquiry was conducted by 250 experienced professors from a single tertiary hospital and other allied professions. The questions covered the current state of elderly participation, possible reasons for under-representation, and plans for its solution. RESULTS: Among 1,900 subjects, 246 (12.9%) individuals completed the survey. We excluded the six subjects who did not answer more than 10 questions, and analyzed the remaining 240 respondents. They agreed that there are tendencies to exclude the aged from clinical trials (69.2%), and that under-representation would cause difficulties for doctors and geriatric patients. Most people (84.6%) thought that treating older adults with the results from trials which exclude aged participants is inappropriate. Because respondents had difficulties explaining the trial process and obtaining informed consent, they thought establishing a geriatric clinical trial team would be highly effective. Experts also believed that financial inducements and legal regulations are required to increase elderly enrollment. CONCLUSION: Because the elderly have a unique physiology, the participation of older adults in clinical research is indispensable for verifying efficacy and determining potential adverse reactions. Consequently, clinical research professionals should be concerned about the participation of older subjects, and the authorities must begin to care about age discrimination in research fields.
Adult ; Aged* ; Ageism ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Drug Approval ; Ethics Committees ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Physiology ; Social Control, Formal ; Tertiary Care Centers

The aging process is linked to changes in the physiological function of organs and changes in body composition that alter the pharmacokinetics of drugs and pharmacodynamic responses. Comorbidity and polypharmacy in the elderly decreases tolerability of drugs, leading to greater vulnerability to adverse drug reactions than that observed in younger adults. In geriatric pharmacotherapy, the general recommendation is dose reduction and slow titration, which is based on pharmacokinetic considerations and concern for adverse drug reactions, rather than clinical trial data. Older patients are under-represented in clinical trials. In the absence of evidence, extrapolation of risk-benefit ratios from younger adults to geriatric populations is not necessarily valid. Sound evidence through prospective clinical trials is essential, and geriatric societies, governments, and patient advocacy groups should collaborate to promote the inclusion of older people in clinical trials. It is believed that all involved in clinical trials have both an obligation and an opportunity to eliminate age discrimination in clinical trial practice.
Adult ; Aged* ; Ageism ; Aging ; Body Composition ; Comorbidity ; Drug Therapy ; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions ; Geriatrics ; Humans ; Patient Advocacy ; Pharmacokinetics ; Pharmacology, Clinical* ; Polypharmacy