Britta A Larsen1, David Strong, Sarah E Linke. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0628, USA, blarsen@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social integration predicts morbidity and mortality, but its relationships with specific health behaviors that could explain this relationship, such as physical activity, have not been established. Additionally, studies associating social integration with health have not distinguished between sources of social contact (family vs. friends), which could be differentially related to health. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between social integration and physical activity and to explore differences in family and friend social integration. METHOD: Data came from the 2001 wave of the National Health Interview Survey. Adult participants (N = 33,326) indicated levels of social integration by reporting whether they had seen and/or called friends and/or family in the past 2 weeks and also reported their weekly minutes of physical activity. Logistic regression was used to determine odds of meeting physical activity (PA) guidelines (≥ 150 min/week) and odds of inactivity (0 min/week) based on levels of social integration. RESULTS: Greater integration predicted higher odds of meeting PA guidelines and lower odds of inactivity after controlling for sociodemographic variables. This association was stronger and dose-dependent for integration with friends, whereas moderate family contact predicted greater activity than high levels of family contact. CONCLUSION: Those who are more socially integrated, particularly with friends rather than family, are also more physically active, which could partially explain the link between social integration and morbidity and mortality. Future studies examining this association should distinguish between sources of integration and explore why and how contact with friends vs. family is differentially associated with health behaviors.
BACKGROUND: Social integration predicts morbidity and mortality, but its relationships with specific health behaviors that could explain this relationship, such as physical activity, have not been established. Additionally, studies associating social integration with health have not distinguished between sources of social contact (family vs. friends), which could be differentially related to health. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between social integration and physical activity and to explore differences in family and friend social integration. METHOD: Data came from the 2001 wave of the National Health Interview Survey. Adult participants (N = 33,326) indicated levels of social integration by reporting whether they had seen and/or called friends and/or family in the past 2 weeks and also reported their weekly minutes of physical activity. Logistic regression was used to determine odds of meeting physical activity (PA) guidelines (≥ 150 min/week) and odds of inactivity (0 min/week) based on levels of social integration. RESULTS: Greater integration predicted higher odds of meeting PA guidelines and lower odds of inactivity after controlling for sociodemographic variables. This association was stronger and dose-dependent for integration with friends, whereas moderate family contact predicted greater activity than high levels of family contact. CONCLUSION: Those who are more socially integrated, particularly with friends rather than family, are also more physically active, which could partially explain the link between social integration and morbidity and mortality. Future studies examining this association should distinguish between sources of integration and explore why and how contact with friends vs. family is differentially associated with health behaviors.
Authors: T Ståhl; A Rütten; D Nutbeam; A Bauman; L Kannas; T Abel; G Lüschen; D J Rodriquez; J Vinck; J van der Zee Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Paul D Thompson; David Buchner; Ileana L Pina; Gary J Balady; Mark A Williams; Bess H Marcus; Kathy Berra; Steven N Blair; Fernando Costa; Barry Franklin; Gerald F Fletcher; Neil F Gordon; Russell R Pate; Beatriz L Rodriguez; Antronette K Yancey; Nanette K Wenger Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Amy E Eyler; Sara Wilcox; Dyann Matson-Koffman; Kelly R Evenson; Bonnie Sanderson; Janice Thompson; JoEllen Wilbur; Deborah Rohm-Young Journal: J Womens Health Gend Based Med Date: 2002-04
Authors: Timothy R Wessel; Christopher B Arant; Marian B Olson; B Delia Johnson; Steven E Reis; Barry L Sharaf; Leslee J Shaw; Eileen Handberg; George Sopko; Sheryl F Kelsey; Carl J Pepine; Noel Bairey Merz Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Amy R Weinstein; Howard D Sesso; I Min Lee; Nancy R Cook; JoAnn E Manson; Julie E Buring; J Michael Gaziano Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yoshinori Fujiwara; Kumiko Nonaka; Masataka Kuraoka; Yoh Murayama; Sachiko Murayama; Yuta Nemoto; Motoki Tanaka; Hiroko Matsunaga; Koji Fujita; Hiroshi Murayama; Erika Kobayashi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Becky Marquez; Andrea Anderson; Rena R Wing; Delia S West; Robert L Newton; Maria Meacham; Helen P Hazuda; Anne Peters; Maria G Montez; Stephanie T Broyles; Martha Walker; Gina Evans-Hudsnall Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Yuta Nemoto; Ryota Sakurai; Hiroko Matsunaga; Yoh Murayama; Masami Hasebe; Mariko Nishi; Miki Narita; Yoshinori Fujiwara Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Janie Houle; Sophie Meunier; Simon Coulombe; Coralie Mercerat; Isabelle Gaboury; Gilles Tremblay; Francine de Montigny; Lyne Cloutier; Bernard Roy; Nathalie Auger; Brigitte Lavoie Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2017-07-02