OBJECTIVE: To determine evaluate the effect of health-promoting lifestyle on the outcomes of suboptimal health status (SHS). METHODS: A prospective population cohort was conducted by consecutively enrolling 5676 college students who took routine health examination from March to May 2013. The participants were assessed for baseline health status and lifestyle and 2972 participants with SHS were followed up for 1.5 years. Exposure was defined as an unhealthy lifestyle. The health-promoting lifestyle was assessed via the Health-promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP-II). SHS was evaluated using the medical examination report and Sub-health Measurement Scale V1.0 (SHMS V1.0). RESULTS: Among the 2972 students with SHS, 422 showed recovery of the healthy status at 1.5 year follow-up, 579 showed progression into disease conditions, and 1971 remained in SHS. The participants with recovered health status presented with significant increase of SHMS V1.0 scores by 8.75∓6.95 points compared to the baseline assessment (t=-2.14, P=0.000) in physiological, psychological and social dimensions; they also showed a marked improvement of HPLP-II scores by 14.73 points in 6 dimensions (t=-15.34, P=0.000). Multivariable regression analyses with adjusted demographic variables revealed a significant association between health status and health-promoting lifestyle (P<0.05). Compared with a healthy lifestyle (minimal exposure), a 'poor' lifestyle (the highest level of exposure) was associated with a 30 times higher risk of developing SHS (OR: 30.598, 95% CI: 3.928-238.331), while a 'moderate' lifestyle (a relatively high-level exposure) had a 24 times higher risk of SHS (OR: 23.988, 95%CI: 14.695-39.158), and a suboptimal lifestyle had a nearly 4 times higher risk of SHS (OR: 4.306, 95%CI: 2.767-6.702). CONCLUSION: s SHS may evolve into either a healthy or a disease condition. A unhealthy lifestyle is the important risk factor contributing to the progression of SHS into a disease condition, suggesting the importance of intervention of unhealthy lifestyles in promoting good health.
OBJECTIVE: To determine evaluate the effect of health-promoting lifestyle on the outcomes of suboptimal health status (SHS). METHODS: A prospective population cohort was conducted by consecutively enrolling 5676 college students who took routine health examination from March to May 2013. The participants were assessed for baseline health status and lifestyle and 2972 participants with SHS were followed up for 1.5 years. Exposure was defined as an unhealthy lifestyle. The health-promoting lifestyle was assessed via the Health-promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP-II). SHS was evaluated using the medical examination report and Sub-health Measurement Scale V1.0 (SHMS V1.0). RESULTS: Among the 2972 students with SHS, 422 showed recovery of the healthy status at 1.5 year follow-up, 579 showed progression into disease conditions, and 1971 remained in SHS. The participants with recovered health status presented with significant increase of SHMS V1.0 scores by 8.75∓6.95 points compared to the baseline assessment (t=-2.14, P=0.000) in physiological, psychological and social dimensions; they also showed a marked improvement of HPLP-II scores by 14.73 points in 6 dimensions (t=-15.34, P=0.000). Multivariable regression analyses with adjusted demographic variables revealed a significant association between health status and health-promoting lifestyle (P<0.05). Compared with a healthy lifestyle (minimal exposure), a 'poor' lifestyle (the highest level of exposure) was associated with a 30 times higher risk of developing SHS (OR: 30.598, 95% CI: 3.928-238.331), while a 'moderate' lifestyle (a relatively high-level exposure) had a 24 times higher risk of SHS (OR: 23.988, 95%CI: 14.695-39.158), and a suboptimal lifestyle had a nearly 4 times higher risk of SHS (OR: 4.306, 95%CI: 2.767-6.702). CONCLUSION: s SHS may evolve into either a healthy or a disease condition. A unhealthy lifestyle is the important risk factor contributing to the progression of SHS into a disease condition, suggesting the importance of intervention of unhealthy lifestyles in promoting good health.
Authors: J Slaman; H J G van den Berg-Emons; J van Meeteren; J Twisk; F van Markus; H J Stam; W M van der Slot; M E Roebroeck Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Elizabeth C Clipp; Miriam C Morey; Carl F Pieper; Richard Sloane; Denise Clutter Snyder; Harvey J Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edward W Gregg; Haiying Chen; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Jeanne M Clark; Linda M Delahanty; John Bantle; Henry J Pownall; Karen C Johnson; Monika M Safford; Abbas E Kitabchi; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Rena R Wing; Alain G Bertoni Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chiara de Waure; Gert-Jan Lauret; Walter Ricciardi; Bart Ferket; Joep Teijink; Sandra Spronk; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Tom C Russ; Mika Kivimäki; Joanne R Morling; John M Starr; Emmanuel Stamatakis; G David Batty Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 22.682