Life expectancy: what does it measure?
Life expectancy (LE) is considered a straightforward summary measure of mortality that comes with an implicit age standardisation. Thus, it has become common to present differences in mortality across populations as differences in LE, instead of, say, relative risks. However, most of the time LE doe...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020-07-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e035932.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850275679716769792 |
|---|---|
| author | Anders Ahlbom Karin Modig Roland Rau |
| author_facet | Anders Ahlbom Karin Modig Roland Rau |
| author_sort | Anders Ahlbom |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Life expectancy (LE) is considered a straightforward summary measure of mortality that comes with an implicit age standardisation. Thus, it has become common to present differences in mortality across populations as differences in LE, instead of, say, relative risks. However, most of the time LE does not quite provide what the term promises. LE is based on a synthetic cohort and is therefore not the true LE of anyone. Also, the implicit age standardisation is construed in such a way that it can be questioned whether it standardises age at all. In this paper, we examine LE from the point of view of its applicability to epidemiological and public health research and provide examples on the relation between an LE difference and a relative risk. We argue that the age standardisation in estimations of LE is not straightforward since it is standardised against different age distributions and that the translation of changes in age specific mortality into change in remaining LE will depend on the level and the distribution of mortality in the population. We conclude that LE is not the measure of choice in aetiological research or in research with the aim to identify risk factors of death, but that LE may be a compelling choice in public health contexts. One cannot escape the thought that the mathematical elegance of LE has contributed to its popularity. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-38dc8342f08244cc9e7fd75cf3dfd654 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-07-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-38dc8342f08244cc9e7fd75cf3dfd6542025-08-20T01:50:39ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-07-0110710.1136/bmjopen-2019-035932Life expectancy: what does it measure?Anders Ahlbom0Karin Modig1Roland Rau2Institute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SwedenInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SwedenMax Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, GermanyLife expectancy (LE) is considered a straightforward summary measure of mortality that comes with an implicit age standardisation. Thus, it has become common to present differences in mortality across populations as differences in LE, instead of, say, relative risks. However, most of the time LE does not quite provide what the term promises. LE is based on a synthetic cohort and is therefore not the true LE of anyone. Also, the implicit age standardisation is construed in such a way that it can be questioned whether it standardises age at all. In this paper, we examine LE from the point of view of its applicability to epidemiological and public health research and provide examples on the relation between an LE difference and a relative risk. We argue that the age standardisation in estimations of LE is not straightforward since it is standardised against different age distributions and that the translation of changes in age specific mortality into change in remaining LE will depend on the level and the distribution of mortality in the population. We conclude that LE is not the measure of choice in aetiological research or in research with the aim to identify risk factors of death, but that LE may be a compelling choice in public health contexts. One cannot escape the thought that the mathematical elegance of LE has contributed to its popularity.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e035932.full |
| spellingShingle | Anders Ahlbom Karin Modig Roland Rau Life expectancy: what does it measure? BMJ Open |
| title | Life expectancy: what does it measure? |
| title_full | Life expectancy: what does it measure? |
| title_fullStr | Life expectancy: what does it measure? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Life expectancy: what does it measure? |
| title_short | Life expectancy: what does it measure? |
| title_sort | life expectancy what does it measure |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e035932.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andersahlbom lifeexpectancywhatdoesitmeasure AT karinmodig lifeexpectancywhatdoesitmeasure AT rolandrau lifeexpectancywhatdoesitmeasure |