Ebba Brann1, John E Chaplin2, Monica Leu Agelii3, Agneta Sjöberg4, Aimon Niklasson5, Kerstin Albertsson-Wikland6, Lauren Lissner3. 1. Section for Epidemiology and Social Medicine (EPSO), Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: ebba.brann@gu.se. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Section for Epidemiology and Social Medicine (EPSO), Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Department of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Department of Physiology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Well-being is affected by the environment, including societal changes. In this study, specific dimensions of well-being were compared in two cohorts of Swedish adolescents born 16 years apart. METHODS: Two groups of 18-year-olds, "Grow up Gothenburg" 1974 and 1990 birth cohorts, completed a self-reported questionnaire including the Gothenburg Well-Being in adolescence scale (GWBa). In addition, height and weight were measured, resulting in 4,362 participants (1974 birth cohort) and 5,151 participants (1990 birth cohort) with age, height, weight, and well-being data. The GWBa consists of a total score and five dimensions: mood, physical condition, energy, self-esteem, and stress balance. RESULTS: Total well-being was significantly lower in the later-born cohort, and the greatest difference was seen for the dimension stress balance (feeling calm, unconcerned, unstressed, and relaxed), although effect sizes were modest. In both boys and girls, well-being was lower for all dimensions in the later-born cohort, with the exception of Self-esteem in girls, which was higher in the later-born cohort. In both cohorts, boys reported higher well-being than girls for all dimensions. The mean body mass index z-score was higher in boys from the later-born cohort, but after adjusting for weight status, the differences in well-being between the cohorts persisted. CONCLUSIONS: Well-being was lower in the later-born cohort, particularly for the dimension stress balance. Differences were not explained by the shift in weight status indicating that other societal changes have had an impact on well-being levels. Managing high levels of stress might be an area of intervention in adolescents for improved well-being.
PURPOSE: Well-being is affected by the environment, including societal changes. In this study, specific dimensions of well-being were compared in two cohorts of Swedish adolescents born 16 years apart. METHODS: Two groups of 18-year-olds, "Grow up Gothenburg" 1974 and 1990 birth cohorts, completed a self-reported questionnaire including the Gothenburg Well-Being in adolescence scale (GWBa). In addition, height and weight were measured, resulting in 4,362 participants (1974 birth cohort) and 5,151 participants (1990 birth cohort) with age, height, weight, and well-being data. The GWBa consists of a total score and five dimensions: mood, physical condition, energy, self-esteem, and stress balance. RESULTS: Total well-being was significantly lower in the later-born cohort, and the greatest difference was seen for the dimension stress balance (feeling calm, unconcerned, unstressed, and relaxed), although effect sizes were modest. In both boys and girls, well-being was lower for all dimensions in the later-born cohort, with the exception of Self-esteem in girls, which was higher in the later-born cohort. In both cohorts, boys reported higher well-being than girls for all dimensions. The mean body mass index z-score was higher in boys from the later-born cohort, but after adjusting for weight status, the differences in well-being between the cohorts persisted. CONCLUSIONS: Well-being was lower in the later-born cohort, particularly for the dimension stress balance. Differences were not explained by the shift in weight status indicating that other societal changes have had an impact on well-being levels. Managing high levels of stress might be an area of intervention in adolescents for improved well-being.