Eric S Kim1,2,3, Scott W Delaney2, Louis Tay4, Ying Chen2,3, E D Diener5, Tyler J Vanderweele2,3. 1. University of British Columbia. 2. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 3. Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University. 4. Purdue University. 5. University of Virginia.
Abstract
Policy Points Several intergovernmental organizations (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Health Organization, United Nations) are urging countries to use well-being indicators (e.g., life satisfaction) in addition to traditional economic indicators when making important policy decisions. As the number of governments implementing this new approach grows, so does the need to continue evaluating the health and well-being outcomes we might observe from policies aimed at improving life satisfaction. The results of this study suggest that life satisfaction is a valuable target for policies aiming to enhance several indicators of psychosocial well-being, health behaviors, and physical health outcomes. CONTEXT: Several intergovernmental organizations (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Health Organization, United Nations) are urging countries to use well-being indicators (e.g., life satisfaction) in addition to traditional economic indicators when making important policy decisions. As the number of governments implementing this new approach grows, so does the need to continue evaluating the health and well-being outcomes we might observe from policies aimed at improving life satisfaction. METHODS: We evaluated whether positive change in life satisfaction (between t0 ;2006/2008 and t1 ;2010/2012) was associated with better outcomes on 35 indicators of physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health and well-being (in t2 ;2014/2016). Data were from 12,998 participants in the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study-a prospective and nationally representative cohort of US adults over age 50. FINDINGS: Participants with the highest (versus lowest) life satisfaction had better subsequent outcomes on some physical health indicators (lower risk of pain, physical functioning limitations, and mortality; lower number of chronic conditions; and higher self-rated health) and health behaviors (lower risk of sleep problems and more frequent physical activity), and nearly all psychosocial indicators (higher positive affect, optimism, purpose in life, mastery, health mastery, financial mastery, and likelihood of living with spouse/partner; and lower depression, depressive symptoms, hopelessness, negative affect, perceived constraints, and loneliness) over the 4-year follow-up period. However, life satisfaction was not subsequently associated with many specific health conditions (i.e., diabetes, hypertension, stroke, cancer, heart disease, lung disease, arthritis, overweight/obesity, or cognitive impairment), other health behaviors (i.e., binge drinking or smoking), or frequency of contact with children, family, or friends. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that life satisfaction is a valuable target for policies aiming to enhance several indicators of psychosocial well-being, health behaviors, and physical health outcomes.
Policy Points Several intergovernmental organizations (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Health Organization, United Nations) are urging countries to use well-being indicators (e.g., life satisfaction) in addition to traditional economic indicators when making important policy decisions. As the number of governments implementing this new approach grows, so does the need to continue evaluating the health and well-being outcomes we might observe from policies aimed at improving life satisfaction. The results of this study suggest that life satisfaction is a valuable target for policies aiming to enhance several indicators of psychosocial well-being, health behaviors, and physical health outcomes. CONTEXT: Several intergovernmental organizations (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Health Organization, United Nations) are urging countries to use well-being indicators (e.g., life satisfaction) in addition to traditional economic indicators when making important policy decisions. As the number of governments implementing this new approach grows, so does the need to continue evaluating the health and well-being outcomes we might observe from policies aimed at improving life satisfaction. METHODS: We evaluated whether positive change in life satisfaction (between t0 ;2006/2008 and t1 ;2010/2012) was associated with better outcomes on 35 indicators of physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health and well-being (in t2 ;2014/2016). Data were from 12,998 participants in the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study-a prospective and nationally representative cohort of US adults over age 50. FINDINGS: Participants with the highest (versus lowest) life satisfaction had better subsequent outcomes on some physical health indicators (lower risk of pain, physical functioning limitations, and mortality; lower number of chronic conditions; and higher self-rated health) and health behaviors (lower risk of sleep problems and more frequent physical activity), and nearly all psychosocial indicators (higher positive affect, optimism, purpose in life, mastery, health mastery, financial mastery, and likelihood of living with spouse/partner; and lower depression, depressive symptoms, hopelessness, negative affect, perceived constraints, and loneliness) over the 4-year follow-up period. However, life satisfaction was not subsequently associated with many specific health conditions (i.e., diabetes, hypertension, stroke, cancer, heart disease, lung disease, arthritis, overweight/obesity, or cognitive impairment), other health behaviors (i.e., binge drinking or smoking), or frequency of contact with children, family, or friends. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that life satisfaction is a valuable target for policies aiming to enhance several indicators of psychosocial well-being, health behaviors, and physical health outcomes.
Authors: Amanda Sonnega; Jessica D Faul; Mary Beth Ofstedal; Kenneth M Langa; John W R Phillips; David R Weir Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Ofer Harel; Emily M Mitchell; Neil J Perkins; Stephen R Cole; Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; BaoLuo Sun; Enrique F Schisterman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Aysu Okbay; Bart M L Baselmans; Jan-Emmanuel De Neve; Patrick Turley; Michel G Nivard; Mark Alan Fontana; S Fleur W Meddens; Richard Karlsson Linnér; Cornelius A Rietveld; Jaime Derringer; Jacob Gratten; James J Lee; Jimmy Z Liu; Ronald de Vlaming; Tarunveer S Ahluwalia; Jadwiga Buchwald; Alana Cavadino; Alexis C Frazier-Wood; Nicholas A Furlotte; Victoria Garfield; Marie Henrike Geisel; Juan R Gonzalez; Saskia Haitjema; Robert Karlsson; Sander W van der Laan; Karl-Heinz Ladwig; Jari Lahti; Sven J van der Lee; Penelope A Lind; Tian Liu; Lindsay Matteson; Evelin Mihailov; Michael B Miller; Camelia C Minica; Ilja M Nolte; Dennis Mook-Kanamori; Peter J van der Most; Christopher Oldmeadow; Yong Qian; Olli Raitakari; Rajesh Rawal; Anu Realo; Rico Rueedi; Börge Schmidt; Albert V Smith; Evie Stergiakouli; Toshiko Tanaka; Kent Taylor; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Juho Wedenoja; Juergen Wellmann; Harm-Jan Westra; Sara M Willems; Wei Zhao; Najaf Amin; Andrew Bakshi; Sven Bergmann; Gyda Bjornsdottir; Patricia A Boyle; Samantha Cherney; Simon R Cox; Gail Davies; Oliver S P Davis; Jun Ding; Nese Direk; Peter Eibich; Rebecca T Emeny; Ghazaleh Fatemifar; Jessica D Faul; Luigi Ferrucci; Andreas J Forstner; Christian Gieger; Richa Gupta; Tamara B Harris; Juliette M Harris; Elizabeth G Holliday; Jouke-Jan Hottenga; Philip L De Jager; Marika A Kaakinen; Eero Kajantie; Ville Karhunen; Ivana Kolcic; Meena Kumari; Lenore J Launer; Lude Franke; Ruifang Li-Gao; David C Liewald; Marisa Koini; Anu Loukola; Pedro Marques-Vidal; Grant W Montgomery; Miriam A Mosing; Lavinia Paternoster; Alison Pattie; Katja E Petrovic; Laura Pulkki-Råback; Lydia Quaye; Katri Räikkönen; Igor Rudan; Rodney J Scott; Jennifer A Smith; Angelina R Sutin; Maciej Trzaskowski; Anna E Vinkhuyzen; Lei Yu; Delilah Zabaneh; John R Attia; David A Bennett; Klaus Berger; Lars Bertram; Dorret I Boomsma; Harold Snieder; Shun-Chiao Chang; Francesco Cucca; Ian J Deary; Cornelia M van Duijn; Johan G Eriksson; Ute Bültmann; Eco J C de Geus; Patrick J F Groenen; Vilmundur Gudnason; Torben Hansen; Catharine A Hartman; Claire M A Haworth; Caroline Hayward; Andrew C Heath; David A Hinds; Elina Hyppönen; William G Iacono; Marjo-Riitta Järvelin; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Jaakko Kaprio; Sharon L R Kardia; Liisa Keltikangas-Järvinen; Peter Kraft; Laura D Kubzansky; Terho Lehtimäki; Patrik K E Magnusson; Nicholas G Martin; Matt McGue; Andres Metspalu; Melinda Mills; Renée de Mutsert; Albertine J Oldehinkel; Gerard Pasterkamp; Nancy L Pedersen; Robert Plomin; Ozren Polasek; Christine Power; Stephen S Rich; Frits R Rosendaal; Hester M den Ruijter; David Schlessinger; Helena Schmidt; Rauli Svento; Reinhold Schmidt; Behrooz Z Alizadeh; Thorkild I A Sørensen; Tim D Spector; John M Starr; Kari Stefansson; Andrew Steptoe; Antonio Terracciano; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; A Roy Thurik; Nicholas J Timpson; Henning Tiemeier; André G Uitterlinden; Peter Vollenweider; Gert G Wagner; David R Weir; Jian Yang; Dalton C Conley; George Davey Smith; Albert Hofman; Magnus Johannesson; David I Laibson; Sarah E Medland; Michelle N Meyer; Joseph K Pickrell; Tõnu Esko; Robert F Krueger; Jonathan P Beauchamp; Philipp D Koellinger; Daniel J Benjamin; Meike Bartels; David Cesarini Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Yiyi Chen; Jiaqi Lu; Canghai Guan; Shiyang Zhang; Spencer De Li Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Begoña Espejo; Marta Martín-Carbonell; Irene Checa; Yadid Paternina; Martha Fernández-Daza; Juan D Higuita; Angela Albarracín; Ara Cerquera Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-01-13