Search results

What is the relationship between longevity and health? Health expectancies were developed more than 30 years ago specifically to answer this question. It may therefore be the time to try to answer this question, though it is worth noting that the question implies a unidirectional relationship. Almost no one questions the positive association between health and longevity. It is expected that healthy, robust people will live, on average, longer than frail people. This heterogeneity in terms of robustness/frailty may explain the shape of the mortality trajectory with age, ie. the oldest old seem to follow a lower mortality schedule (Vaupel et al, 1979). On the other hand, many people wonder about the relationship between longevity and health. Are we living longer because we are in better health? Are we living longer in good health? Or are we merely surviving longer whatever our health status? In other words, can we live in good health as long as we can survive? And this is exactly the purpose of health expectancies: monitoring how long people live in various health statuses (Sanders, 1964; Sullivan, 1971; Robine et al, 2003a).

A review of the literature on the Filipino elderly reveals that social and cultural expectations of filial duty and obligations are still strong in the Filipino family. Filial piety based on the concept of “utang na loob” or debt of gratitude to parents, and respect for age are important traditional Filipino values as evident in the support given by children to their parents, and in the words and practices showing deference to the older generation. Studies have shown that the most common living arrangement of the elderly is co-residence with children or to have at least one child living close by in the neighborhood. With the generally poor economic well-being of the elderly, they rely heavily on their children both in the Philippines and abroad for support. Caregiving of the elderly is family-based with the children, particularly the daughters, as major providers of care and assistance to maintain their physical well-being. Studies have also shown the importance of intergenerational solidarity for the social well-being and mental health of the elderly through constant communication and visits, with a two-way flow of economic and emotional support between parents and children. Institutionalization of the elderly appears to be a last resort to complement rather than replace the welfare function of the family.

For future research, it is recommended that government laws benefitting the elderly and their implementation be analyzed, including the most effective way to reach those in remote areas in order to disseminate information on their benefits. Studies should also be done to develop programs for caregiving training and incentives, on ways to uphold standards and monitor the quality of facilities of private retirement homes, to establish more government homes or home-care services for the indigent who needs long-term care. It is also recommended that studies on geriatric centers and facilities be done to ensure high-quality of elderly care.

This study aims to examine the relationship between various types of literacy on one hand and identification of misinformation and dissemination of such information on the other, in search for better countermeasures against misinformation.

Based on data from a large-scale survey, models are constructed and analyzed to assess the relationships of literacy with both the identification of inaccuracies and dissemination behavior.

Regarding the identification of misinformation, individuals with high critical thinking attitudes (subjective literacy) are less likely to recognize misinformation, while other objective literacies do not have a significant relationship. Regarding dissemination behavior, individuals with high information literacy, media literacy and critical thinking scores tend not to disseminate misinformation, whereas those with high critical thinking attitudes are more likely to disseminate such information.

First, it quantitatively elucidates the relationships various literacies have with the accuracy judgment and dissemination behavior of misinformation. This highlights the effectiveness of objective indicators of literacies and the need for caution regarding subjective literacy – i.e. self-confidence in their own literacy. Second, it provides a cross-disciplinary analysis of the relationships, covering not only oft-studied politics and health care but also various other fields, thereby identifying comprehensive literacy strategies against misinformation. Third, it addresses differences in dissemination methods and offers insights into more practical countermeasures.