How is housing insecurity measured among older adults? A systematic review

Clicks: 1
ID: 317244
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #141 of 155 articles by views in the gerontologist

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 155 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Housing insecurity is an established social determinant of health, with older adults being disproportionately vulnerable. Despite growing research attention, no studies have reviewed the measurement tools existing specifically for this population. This systematic review synthesizes quantitative measures of housing insecurity used among older adults, examines their dimensional structures, and evaluates their psychometric properties. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across five electronic databases with no date restrictions. Eligible studies were required to include samples of older adults or mixed-age adults without an upper age limit, employ quantitative housing insecurity measures, and report psychometric evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 1,310 articles was retrieved initially and 13 studies were included in the final review. Most studies constructed composite indices from secondary survey data rather than purpose-built instruments. Six core dimensions were identified: housing unaffordability, instability, poor physical quality, inadequacy, lack or disrepair of housing durables, and poor neighborhood quality. Age-friendly housing characteristics were incorporated in only one study. Internal consistency was reported in two studies and test-retest reliability in none, with validity evidence largely confined to informal content justifications. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The reviewed tools showed considerable fragmentation in measurement approaches, uneven dimensional coverage, and insufficient psychometric reporting. The near-universal absence of age-friendly indicators across reviewed tools presents a notable gap. Future research may benefit from developing purpose-built, comprehensively validated instruments that integrate aging-specific dimensions across diverse policy and cultural contexts.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164656542 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Tianxin Cai, Cheng Peng, Sin Yu Lam, Peiyi Lu
Journal the gerontologist
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/geront/gnag130
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnag130
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.