Summary

This report aims to answer the following three key research questions:

Data collection was carried out through desk research (for example, webpages and policy documents), a roundtable discussion, and two individual interviews with persons who are working in Nordic municipalities. International databases of statistics and indicators, such as the WHO, UNECE, OECD, and IHME were explored. In addition, indicators for Age-friendly Environments in Europe as well as Eurostat and ESS databases were examined. Furthermore, Nordic Health and Welfare Statistics (NHWStat) and the Nordic Statistics Database (NSD) were also included as well as indicators for AHA from the national statistics institutes (NSIs) and national agencies at both the regional and municipal level.

This report presents, in addition to international and European indicators, a list of common Nordic indicators in this field. The indicators originate from Eurostat, the OECD, the ESS, and the UNECE, and they are classified in Table 4 according to the thematic domains of healthy ageing and wellbeing, socio-economic status, and social activity, engagement, and participation.

One common aspect that emerged in the roundtable discussions with representatives from different Nordic municipalities was the view that users of health and welfare technology could, and should, become more independent from the municipal healthcare services. Another conclusion is that municipalities do not to extensively use existing indicators in support of their work because there are not many useful indicators at the local level. Municipalities often lack the resources (both financial and technical) and might not have the same opportunities to develop such indicators themselves. Monitoring is a costly process as it often requires conducting surveys in order to grasp issues that go beyond medical or tax records. In addition, it is important to highlight that indicators for AHA need to focus on the individual level, meaning that disaggregation by socio-demographic markers such as age and gender is necessary. Municipalities find that having the right indicators could be useful for developing better strategies and policies in the field.

The wide range of indicators that exist from the municipal to the international level is an advantage for those who work with AHA in the Nordic region. For instance, indicators from transnational institutions allow comparisons between countries, and even between regions within these countries. This is important if the Nordic countries aspire to have a common strategy for AHA. Nonetheless, there are challenges that remain, such as the conceptualisations of AHA and how this influences the production of indicators. While the UNECE and WHO frameworks for AHA and age-friendly cities are highly relevant lighthouses for various stakeholders, they might fall short in addressing local needs, even at national levels. Hence, it is not easy to synthesise all these indicators into a working conceptualisation that spans all population needs. If local actors do not possess the tools to address AHA due to the already made conceptualisations, it might be difficult to make a thorough diagnosis of their situations. Therefore, it is a great advantage for the Nordic region to be relatively well covered by international indicators, but these indicators should be treated with caution so as not to draw false conclusions regarding the status of AHA.

There are also other challenges that need to be addressed. The indicators produced by the OECD, ESS, Eurostat, and UNECE show that country and time coverage is not always guaranteed. The clearest examples of this are the data from Eurostat and UNECE, which often do not cover Iceland and Norway because they are not part of the European Union. As also highlighted in this report, not all Nordic countries have participated in all editions of the ESS. The lack of country and time coverage for these data pose a great challenge for studying changes over time as well as for carrying out comparisons between countries. Another challenge identified in this report is the obsolescence of data.

Finally, a further challenge concerns the coverage of subnational territories (regions and/or municipalities). It is very seldom that supranational institutions produce indicators that are relevant for AHA at the subnational level, with Eurostat being an exception. This represents a barrier for comparability across regions in different countries because this means that national institutions have the responsibility to produce these indicators and, as such, these indicators tend to be different in each country. This report presents some recommendations aimed at improving the availability and quality of statistical indicators, for example, through future co-operation with relevant Nordic actors.