OBJECTIVE: Research has shown that self-assessments of health are strong predictors of morbidity and mortality regardless of format (i.e., self or comparative). In this study, the authors examined the relationship between 2 of these health assessments, self-assessed health (SAH) and comparative health (CH). On the basis of social psychological theory, they hypothesized that CH is predictive of health outcomes because it is based on SAH. Additionally, the authors examined whether motivational and dispositional factors influenced CH and whether these factors were able to account for the differences between CH and SAH. METHOD: Data were obtained from 851 community-dwelling older adults (M = 73 years). Participants responded to questionnaires assessing personality characteristics (e.g., trait affectivity, dispositional optimism and pessimism), and health status (e.g., functional limitations). All-cause mortality was tracked for a 10-year period. RESULTS: Correlation and agreement analyses revealed that both judgments had a high degree of similarity. As expected, survival analysis showed that CH predicted mortality but only until SAH was added into the model. Analysis examining the factors that influence CH showed that after controlling for SAH, high levels of trait positive affectivity, low levels of functional limitations, and low levels of fatigue-lack of energy were associated with high CH ratings. Examination of CH-SAH difference scores showed that only participants' age accounted for differences between these 2 judgments. CONCLUSIONS: These data revealed that CH judgments were, to a great extent, based on SAH. Results showed that motivational factors influence CH judgments but do not explain the differences between SAH and CH.
OBJECTIVE: Research has shown that self-assessments of health are strong predictors of morbidity and mortality regardless of format (i.e., self or comparative). In this study, the authors examined the relationship between 2 of these health assessments, self-assessed health (SAH) and comparative health (CH). On the basis of social psychological theory, they hypothesized that CH is predictive of health outcomes because it is based on SAH. Additionally, the authors examined whether motivational and dispositional factors influenced CH and whether these factors were able to account for the differences between CH and SAH. METHOD: Data were obtained from 851 community-dwelling older adults (M = 73 years). Participants responded to questionnaires assessing personality characteristics (e.g., trait affectivity, dispositional optimism and pessimism), and health status (e.g., functional limitations). All-cause mortality was tracked for a 10-year period. RESULTS: Correlation and agreement analyses revealed that both judgments had a high degree of similarity. As expected, survival analysis showed that CH predicted mortality but only until SAH was added into the model. Analysis examining the factors that influence CH showed that after controlling for SAH, high levels of trait positive affectivity, low levels of functional limitations, and low levels of fatigue-lack of energy were associated with high CH ratings. Examination of CH-SAH difference scores showed that only participants' age accounted for differences between these 2 judgments. CONCLUSIONS: These data revealed that CH judgments were, to a great extent, based on SAH. Results showed that motivational factors influence CH judgments but do not explain the differences between SAH and CH.
Authors: Emil Sundstrup; Markus D Jakobsen; Mikkel Brandt; Kenneth Jay; Per Aagaard; Lars L Andersen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Emil Sundstrup; Markus Due Jakobsen; Mikkel Brandt; Kenneth Jay; Per Aagaard; Lars Louis Andersen Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 3.411