Table 1

Classification of reviewed literature on active aging in rural China (Scopus search results, 2014–2025)

CategoryRepresentative articlesMain focus
① Health-centric studiesChen and Zheng (2025), Liu et al. (2022a, b), Huang et al. (2025a, b), Fu et al. (2021), Huang et al. (2025a, b), Kumar et al. (2016) Focused on biomedical or physical health indicators (frailty, sarcopenia, cognitive function, disability, morbidity)
② Urban-biased or mixed-sample studiesChen et al. (2021a, b), Lin and Xu (2025), Wang and Zhao (2024), Feng et al. (2015), Huang et al. (2025a, b) Used mixed or peri-urban samples, some drew from national surveys without rural disaggregation
③ Thematic non-index studiesLiu (2014a, b), Yang and Du (2021), Qu et al. (2023), Meng et al. (2025) Addressed social, cultural and familial aspects of aging (e.g. migration, gender, leisure, or education)
④ Governance or institutional modelsDai et al. (2025), Luo et al. (2025), Dou et al. (2025), Feng et al. (2020), Tang et al. (2020) Investigated community services, canteen programs, mutual aid, or administrative mechanisms
⑤ Potentially index-based or multi-dimensional frameworksGuo et al. (2024), Sia et al. (2021), Chen et al. (2021a, b), Liang et al. (2025) Incorporated multiple domains (health, participation, satisfaction) but without unified AAI-based scoring or rural specificity
⑥ Other thematic or spatial studiesQiu et al. (2024), Chen and Zheng (2025), Li et al. (2018a, b) Emphasized environment, housing, or spatial inequality

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal