| Literature DB >> 30649174 |
Ying Chen1,2, Eric S Kim3, Howard K Koh4,5, A Lindsay Frazier2,6,7, Tyler J VanderWeele1,2.
Abstract
Purpose in life is potentially a modifiable "health asset" that enhances health and well-being. However, the association between purpose and health in younger populations remains understudied. In this study, we prospectively examined an aspect of purpose in life-specifically having a sense of mission-and a wide range of outcomes related to psychosocial well-being, mental health, health behaviors, and physical health in young adults. Longitudinal data from the Growing Up Today Study (2007-2010 or 2007-2013, depending on outcome; mean baseline age = 22.97 years) were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. Sample sizes ranged from 6,323 to 7,463, depending on outcome. Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple testing. All models controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, religious service attendance, maternal attachment, and prior values of the outcome variables. Greater sense of mission was associated with greater psychological well-being (including life satisfaction, positive affect, self-esteem, emotional processing, and emotional expression), greater use of preventive health care, more volunteer activities, and possibly fewer depressive symptoms. However, there was little association with physical health or other behavioral outcomes. The formation of a sense of mission may provide a novel target for promoting multiple facets of psychological well-being, prosocial character, and possibly mental health among young adults.Entities:
Keywords: health; outcome-wide analysis; purpose in life; religion; sense of mission; well-being; young adults
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30649174 PMCID: PMC6438813 DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwz009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Epidemiol ISSN: 0002-9262 Impact factor: 4.897
Characteristics of Participants According to Level of Sense of Mission at Study Baseline (2007 Questionnaire Wave; n = 9,203), Growing Up Today Study, 2007
| Participant Characteristica | Level of Sense of Missionb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bottom Level ( | Middle Level ( | Top Level ( | |||||
| % | Mean (SD) | % | Mean (SD) | % | Mean (SD) | ||
| Sociodemographic factors | |||||||
| Age, yearsc | 23.05 (1.74) | 22.98 (1.71) | 22.90 (1.69) | 0.018 | |||
| Male sex | 42.17 | 35.64 | 35.36 | <0.001 | |||
| White race | 92.33 | 94.01 | 92.56 | 0.013 | |||
| Geographical region | <0.001 | ||||||
| West | 17.62 | 15.39 | 18.84 | ||||
| Midwest | 30.40 | 35.17 | 34.10 | ||||
| South | 15.34 | 15.77 | 17.85 | ||||
| Northeast | 36.64 | 33.66 | 29.21 | ||||
| Mother’s subjective SES in the United Statesc | 7.11 (1.34) | 7.16 (1.26) | 7.25 (1.29) | 0.003 | |||
| Mother’s subjective SES in the communityc | 6.93 (1.58) | 7.05 (1.52) | 7.12 (1.56) | <0.001 | |||
| Pretax annual household income | 0.530 | ||||||
| <$50,000 | 11.79 | 12.39 | 11.90 | ||||
| $50,000–$74,999 | 23.52 | 22.65 | 24.15 | ||||
| $75,000–$99,999 | 22.47 | 23.05 | 20.89 | ||||
| ≥$100,000 | 42.22 | 41.91 | 43.05 | ||||
| Census-tract % of persons with a college educationc | 33.35 (16.59) | 32.84 (16.46) | 31.70 (15.85) | 0.002 | |||
| Census-tract median annual income | 0.420 | ||||||
| <$50,000 | 22.71 | 22.58 | 23.73 | ||||
| $50,000–$74,999 | 47.70 | 48.00 | 49.36 | ||||
| $75,000–$99,999 | 21.55 | 21.37 | 19.67 | ||||
| ≥$100,000 | 8.04 | 8.05 | 7.23 | ||||
| Maternal attachmentc | 36.43 (7.42) | 37.68 (7.03) | 38.61 (7.15) | <0.001 | |||
| Frequency of attendance at religious services | <0.001 | ||||||
| Never | 56.78 | 39.30 | 28.94 | ||||
| Less than once per week | 32.04 | 39.01 | 32.13 | ||||
| At least once per week | 11.19 | 21.69 | 38.93 | ||||
| Prior health status/health behaviors | |||||||
| Depressive symptomsc | 6.93 (3.82) | 5.61 (3.23) | 4.94 (3.20) | <0.001 | |||
| Binge eating | 2.48 | 2.26 | 1.60 | 0.117 | |||
| Overweight or obesity | 32.24 | 29.27 | 26.92 | 0.002 | |||
| Cigarette smoking | 42.17 | 36.55 | 29.51 | <0.001 | |||
| Frequent binge drinking | 32.52 | 27.48 | 21.86 | <0.001 | |||
| Marijuana use | 40.46 | 31.61 | 24.27 | <0.001 | |||
| Use of drugs other than marijuana | 14.98 | 11.35 | 9.03 | <0.001 | |||
| Prescription drug misuse | 21.04 | 17.78 | 14.68 | <0.001 | |||
| History of STIs | 6.84 | 6.67 | 5.71 | 0.270 | |||
| Past-year use of preventive health care | 56.75 | 60.43 | 63.77 | <0.001 | |||
| Frequency of volunteeringc | 1.51 (0.74) | 1.77 (0.81) | 2.14 (0.95) | <0.001 | |||
| Voting registration status | 85.76 | 89.55 | 91.92 | <0.001 | |||
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; SES, socioeconomic status; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
a For information on variable categories, see Web Appendix 1.
b Analysis of variance or χ2 tests were used to examine the mean (SD) level of a characteristic or the proportion of individuals within each level of sense of mission with that characteristic. Sense of mission was originally measured on a scale from 1 to 4. We collapsed the 2 lowest categories to create a 3-level variable. Percentages in subgroups may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
c Range of values for participant characteristics in this sample: age, 20–28 years; mother’s subjective SES in the United States, 1–10; mother’s subjective SES in the community, 1–10; census-tract percentage with a college education, 0%–85%; maternal attachment, 9–45; depressive symptoms, 0–21; prior frequency of volunteering, 1–4.
Association Between Sense of Mission and Subsequent Health and Well-Being in Young Adults (2010 or 2013 Questionnaire Wave; n = 6,323–7,463a), Growing Up Today Study, 2007–2010 or 2007–2013
| Health and Well-Being Outcomeb | Sense of Missionc | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Middle Level vs. Bottom Level | Top Level vs. Bottom Level | |||||||
| RRd | βe | 95% CI | RRd | βe | 95% CI | |||
| Psychological well-being | ||||||||
| Life satisfaction | 0.17 | 0.11, 0.24 | <0.002f | 0.33 | 0.25, 0.40 | <0.002f | ||
| Positive affect | 0.21 | 0.15, 0.27 | <0.002f | 0.42 | 0.35, 0.49 | <0.002f | ||
| Self-esteem | 0.15 | 0.09, 0.22 | <0.002f | 0.33 | 0.26, 0.40 | <0.002f | ||
| Emotional processing | 0.21 | 0.14, 0.27 | <0.002f | 0.43 | 0.36, 0.51 | <0.002f | ||
| Emotional expression | 0.13 | 0.06, 0.19 | <0.002f | 0.28 | 0.21, 0.35 | <0.002f | ||
| Physical health | ||||||||
| No. of physical health problems | 0.02 | −0.04, 0.08 | 0.04 | −0.03, 0.11 | ||||
| Overweight/obesity | 1.02 | 0.95, 1.09 | 1.04 | 0.96, 1.13 | ||||
| Mental health | ||||||||
| Depressive symptoms | −0.05 | −0.11, 0.01 | −0.11 | −0.18, −0.04 | <0.010 | |||
| Depression diagnosis | 0.91 | 0.80, 1.03 | 0.95 | 0.81, 1.12 | ||||
| Anxiety symptoms | 0.03 | −0.04, 0.09 | −0.01 | −0.08, 0.06 | ||||
| Anxiety diagnosis | 0.94 | 0.81, 1.09 | 1.00 | 0.83, 1.20 | ||||
| Health behaviors | ||||||||
| Binge eating | 1.04 | 0.58, 1.87 | 0.61 | 0.28, 1.32 | ||||
| Eating disorder | 0.80 | 0.51, 1.26 | 0.74 | 0.43, 1.25 | ||||
| Cigarette smoking | 0.96 | 0.88, 1.05 | 1.01 | 0.91, 1.12 | ||||
| Frequent binge drinking | 1.02 | 0.94, 1.10 | 0.93 | 0.84, 1.03 | ||||
| Marijuana use | 0.93 | 0.85, 1.01 | 0.95 | 0.85, 1.06 | ||||
| Any other illicit drug use | 1.08 | 0.91, 1.29 | 1.04 | 0.84, 1.29 | ||||
| Prescription drug misuse | 1.01 | 0.87, 1.16 | 1.03 | 0.86, 1.24 | ||||
| History of STIs | 0.98 | 0.83, 1.15 | 0.85 | 0.69, 1.04 | ||||
| Use of preventive health care | 1.11 | 1.05, 1.18 | <0.002f | 1.15 | 1.08, 1.23 | <0.002f | ||
| Short sleep duration | 1.09 | 0.97, 1.24 | 1.20 | 1.04, 1.38 | <0.050 | |||
| Volunteering and civic engagement | ||||||||
| Contributed time to community | 0.09 | 0.03, 0.15 | <0.010 | 0.17 | 0.10, 0.25 | <0.002f | ||
| Contributed time to charity | 0.09 | 0.03, 0.15 | <0.010 | 0.20 | 0.12, 0.27 | <0.002f | ||
| Contributed time to place of worship | 0.15 | 0.10, 0.19 | <0.002f | 0.31 | 0.25, 0.37 | <0.002f | ||
| Voted in 2008 presidential election | 1.03 | 1.00, 1.06 | 1.03 | 0.99, 1.06 | ||||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; RR, risk ratio; SES, socioeconomic status; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
a The full analytical sample was restricted to participants who had valid data on sense of mission. The actual sample size for each analysis varied depending on the number of missing values for each outcome under investigation. Missing data on the covariates were imputed from previous questionnaire years; if no such data were available, missing data were imputed using the mean values (continuous variables) or values of the largest category (categorical variables) of the nonmissing data. All models controlled for participants’ age, race, sex, area of residence, mother’s report of SES (subjective SES, household income, census-tract percentage with a college education, and census-tract median income), participants’ prior religious service attendance, prior maternal attachment, and prior values of the outcome variables (prior depressive symptoms, prior binge eating, prior overweight/obesity, prior smoking, prior binge drinking, prior marijuana use, prior use of other illicit drugs, prior prescription drug misuse, prior history of STIs, prior use of preventive health care, prior frequency of volunteering, and prior voting registration status).
b For information on variable categories, see Web Appendix 1.
c Sense of mission was originally measured on a scale from 1 to 4. We collapsed the lowest 2 categories to create a 3-level variable.
d Effect estimates for the outcomes “binge eating” and “eating disorder” were ORs (examined with a binomial distribution, logit link; these outcomes were rare (prevalence <10%), so the OR would approximate the RR). Effect estimates for other dichotomized outcomes were RRs (examined with a Poisson distribution, log link).
e All continuous outcomes were standardized (mean = 0, standard deviation, 1), and β was the standardized effect size.
fP < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction (P value cutoff for Bonferroni correction = 0.05/25 outcomes = 0.002).
Potential Antecedents of Sense of Missiona for the Top Level of Sense of Mission Versus the Middle and Bottom Levels Combined (2005 Questionnaire Wave; n = 9,203), Growing Up Today Study, 2005–2007b
| Potential Antecedentc | RR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of attendance at religious services (vs. never)d | |||
| Less than once per week | 1.05 | 0.96, 1.14 | 0.287 |
| At least once per week | 1.54 | 1.42, 1.67 | <0.001 |
| Age (standardized), years | 1.00 | 0.96, 1.03 | 0.817 |
| Male sex (vs. female) | 0.99 | 0.93, 1.06 | 0.824 |
| White race (vs. nonwhite) | 0.89 | 0.79, 1.00 | 0.047 |
| Area of residence (vs. West) | |||
| Midwest | 0.83 | 0.76, 0.91 | <0.001 |
| South | 0.95 | 0.86, 1.06 | 0.367 |
| Northeast | 0.79 | 0.72, 0.87 | <0.001 |
| Mother’s subjective SES in the United States (standardized) | 1.03 | 0.99, 1.08 | 0.144 |
| Mother’s subjective SES in the community (standardized) | 0.99 | 0.95, 1.03 | 0.471 |
| Pretax annual household income (vs. <$50,000), % | |||
| $50,000–$74,999 | 1.06 | 0.93, 1.20 | 0.367 |
| $75,000–$99,999 | 1.00 | 0.89, 1.12 | 0.977 |
| ≥$100,000 | 1.06 | 0.94, 1.20 | 0.355 |
| Census-tract % with a college education (standardized) | 0.93 | 0.88, 0.98 | 0.008 |
| Census-tract median annual income (vs. <$50,000), % | |||
| $50,000–$74,999 | 1.07 | 0.98, 1.17 | 0.149 |
| $75,000–$99,999 | 1.06 | 0.91, 1.22 | 0.458 |
| ≥$100,000 | 1.11 | 0.90, 1.36 | 0.315 |
| Maternal attachment (standardized) | 1.07 | 1.03, 1.11 | <0.001 |
| Depressive symptoms (standardized) | 0.83 | 0.80, 0.86 | <0.001 |
| Binge eating (yes vs. no) | 0.96 | 0.73, 1.26 | 0.759 |
| Overweight or obesity (yes vs. no) | 0.96 | 0.89, 1.04 | 0.308 |
| Cigarette smoking (yes vs. no) | 1.00 | 0.92, 1.09 | 0.970 |
| Frequent binge drinking (yes vs. no) | 0.94 | 0.86, 1.03 | 0.200 |
| Marijuana use (yes vs. no) | 0.88 | 0.80, 0.97 | 0.011 |
| Illicit drug use other than marijuana (yes vs. no) | 1.05 | 0.91, 1.21 | 0.533 |
| Prescription drug misuse (yes vs. no) | 1.05 | 0.94, 1.17 | 0.387 |
| History of STIs (yes vs. no) | 1.02 | 0.87, 1.19 | 0.844 |
| Past-year use of preventive health care (yes vs. no) | 1.17 | 1.09, 1.26 | <0.001 |
| Frequency of volunteering (standardized) | 1.30 | 1.27, 1.34 | <0.001 |
| Voting registration status (yes vs. no) | 1.21 | 1.07, 1.37 | 0.003 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio; SES, socioeconomic status; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
a Sense of mission was originally measured on a scale from 1 to 4. We collapsed the bottom 2 categories to create a 3-level variable.
b A generalized estimating equations model (Poisson distribution, log link) was used to regress the top level of sense of mission (versus the middle and bottom levels combined; approximately 27.35% of the participants reported being at the top level of mission in this sample) on the following covariates simultaneously: participant’s age, race, sex, area of residence, mother’s report of SES (subjective SES, household income, census-tract percentage with a college education, and census-tract median income), participant’s religious service attendance, maternal attachment, and prior values of the outcome variables (prior depressive symptoms, prior binge eating, prior overweight/obesity, prior smoking, prior binge drinking, prior marijuana use, prior use of other illicit drugs, prior prescription drug misuse, prior history of STIs, prior routine physical examination, prior frequency of volunteering, and prior voting registration status), adjusting for clustering by sibling status.
c For information on variable categories, see Web Appendix 1.
d The unadjusted proportions of persons who were in the top level of sense of mission across the different levels of prior religious service attendance were as follows: never attended services, 22.48%; attended services less than once per week, 24.42%; attended services at least once per week, 43.42%.
Robustness to Unmeasured Confounding (E-Valuesa) of Associations Between Sense of Missionb (Top Level vs. Bottom Level) and Subsequent Health and Well-Being Among Young Adults (2010 or 2013 Questionnaire Wave; n = 6,323–7,463), Growing Up Today Study, 2007–2010 or 2007–2013
| Health and Well-Being Outcomec | E-Value | |
|---|---|---|
| For Effect Estimated | For CI Limite | |
| Life satisfaction | 2.04 | 1.88 |
| Positive affect | 2.29 | 2.12 |
| Self-esteem | 2.04 | 1.88 |
| Emotional processing | 2.32 | 2.10 |
| Emotional expression | 1.90 | 1.75 |
| No. of physical health problems | 1.23 | 1.00 |
| Overweight/obesity | 1.24 | 1.00 |
| Depressive symptoms | 1.45 | 1.27 |
| Depression diagnosis | 1.29 | 1.00 |
| Anxiety symptoms | 1.11 | 1.00 |
| Anxiety diagnosis | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Binge eating | 2.66 | 1.00 |
| Eating disorder | 2.04 | 1.00 |
| Cigarette smoking | 1.11 | 1.00 |
| Binge drinking | 1.36 | 1.00 |
| Marijuana use | 1.29 | 1.00 |
| Any other illicit drug use | 1.24 | 1.00 |
| Prescription drug misuse | 1.21 | 1.00 |
| History of STIs | 1.63 | 1.00 |
| Use of preventive health care | 1.57 | 1.76 |
| Short sleep duration | 1.69 | 1.24 |
| Contributed time to community | 1.61 | 1.39 |
| Contributed time to charity | 1.69 | 1.48 |
| Contributed time to place of worship | 1.98 | 1.83 |
| Voted in 2008 presidential election | 1.21 | 1.00 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
a For information on calculation of E-values, see VanderWeele and Ding (24) for the formula and Mathur et al. (25) for the website and R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
b Sense of mission was originally measured on a scale from 1 to 4. We collapsed the lowest 2 categories to create a 3-level variable.
c For information on variable categories, see Web Appendix 1.
d E-values for effect estimates are the minimum strength of association on the risk ratio scale that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the exposure and the outcome, above and beyond the measured covariates, to fully explain away the observed association of sense of mission (top level vs. bottom level) with various outcomes as shown in Table 2.
e E-values for the 95% CI limit closest to the null denote the minimum strength of association on the risk ratio scale that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the exposure and the outcome, above and beyond the measured covariates, to shift the 95% CI to include the null value.