Lifestyle-related attitudes: do they explain self-rated health and life-satisfaction?
Strategies to improve public health may benefit from targeting specific lifestyles associated with poor health behaviors and outcomes. The aim of this study was to characterize and examine the relationship between health and lifestyle-related attitudes (HLAs) and self-rated health and life-satisfaction.
Secondary analyses were conducted on data from a 2012 community wellness survey in Kirklees, UK. Using a validated HLA tool, respondents (n = 9130) were categorized into five segments: health conscious realists (33%), balanced compensators (14%), live-for-todays (18%), hedonistic immortals (10%), and unconfident fatalists (25%). Multivariate regression was used to examine whether HLAs could explain self-rated health using the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) and life-satisfaction. Health conscious realists served as the reference group.
Self-rated health differed by HLA, with adjusted mean EQ-VAS scores being significantly higher (better) among balanced compensators (1.15, 95% CI 0.27, 2.03) and lower scores among unconfident fatalists (− 9.02, 95% CI − 9.85, − 8.21) and live-for-todays (− 1.96, 95% CI − 2.80, − 1.14). Balanced compensators were less likely to report low life-satisfaction (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62, 0.90), while unconfident fatalists were most likely to have low life-satisfaction (OR 3.51, 95% CI 2.92, 4.23).
Segmentation by HLA explained differences in self-rated health and life-satisfaction, with unconfident fatalists being a distinct segment with significantly worse health perceptions and life-satisfaction. Health promotion efforts may benefit from considering the HLA segment that predominates a patient group, especially unconfident fatalists.
KeywordsEQ-5D-5L Health attitudes Perception of health Life-satisfaction Lifestyle
The authors gratefully acknowledge permission to publish the results generated from the analysis of the CLiK 2012 dataset granted by Helen Bewsher, Kirklees Council, UK.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This secondary data analysis was determined by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC IRB # 2014-0445) not to be an activity that represents human subject research.
- 2.Ferrans, C. E., Zerwic, J. J., Wilbur, J. E., & Larson, J. L. (2005). Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. The Journal of Nursing Research, 37(4), 336–342.Google Scholar
- 3.Williams, B., McVey, D., & Davies, L. (2011). The healthy foundations lifestage segmentation: Research Report No. 1: Creating the segmentation using a quantitative survey of the general population of England. In: London: Department of Health (DH)/National Social Marketing Centre (NSMC). Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://www.thensmc.com/sites/default/files/301846_HFLSReport No1_ACC.pdf.
- 4.Smith, A., Humphreys, S., Heslington, L., La Placa, V., McVey, D., & MacGregor, E. (2011). The healthy foundations lifestage segmentation: Research Report No. 2: The qualitative analysis of the motivational segments. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from http://www.thensmc.com/sites/default/files/HFLSReport No2_ACC.pdf.
- 6.Jalundhwala, Y. J., Pickard, A. S., Walton, S. M., Sharp, L. K., Schumock, G. T., & Caskey, R. N. (2015). Explaining health behaviors and outcomes based on lifestyle-related attitudes: a comparison of approaches (in preparation).Google Scholar
- 7.World Health Organization. (2002). The World Health report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- 9.Maibach, E. W., Maxfield, A., Ladin, K., & Slater, M. (1996). Translating health psychology into effective health communication: The American healthstyles audience segmentation project. Journal of Health Psychology, 1(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539600100302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Anic, G. (2007). The association between personality and risk taking. Tampa: University of South Florida.Google Scholar
- 18.Koh, J. S., Ko, H. J., Wang, S. M., Cho, K. J., Kim, J. C., Lee, S. J., et al. (2014). The association of personality trait on treatment outcomes in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 76(2), 127–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Milte, C. M., Luszcz, M. A., Ratcliffe, J., Masters, S., & Crotty, M. (2014). Influence of health locus of control on recovery of function in recently hospitalized frail older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int (Milte C.M., firstname.lastname@example.org; Crotty, M.) Flinders University Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park, South Australia.Google Scholar
- 24.NHS Kirklees and Kirklees Council. (2012). Technical report for the CLiK 2012 survey. Retrieved November 19, 2014 from http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/involve/publisheddoc.aspx?ref=om4zlaf5&e=353.
- 25.Bareham, A., Topping, A., McCluskey, S., Stephenson, J., & Butcher, P. (2012). Healthy foundations life-stage segmentation model toolkit: An effective tool for public health interventions?.Google Scholar
- 27.Robinson, C. (2015). Healthy foundations segmentation. Retrieved October 24, 2015 from http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB09300/HSE2011-Ch8-Health-Foundation.pdf.
- 28.Kirklees Council. (2013). Kirklees JSNA data source descriptions. Retrieved July 27, 2017 from http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/public-health-partners/jsna/pdf/KirkleesJSNADatasourcedescriptions.pdf.
- 30.Savoia, E., Fantini, M. P., Pandolfi, P. P., Dallolio, L., & Collina, N. (2006). Assessing the construct validity of the Italian version of the EQ-5D: preliminary results from a cross-sectional study in North Italy. Health and Quality of Life Outcome, 4, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Chang, T. J., Tarn, Y. H., Hsieh, C. L., Liou, W. S., Shaw, J. W., & Chiou, X. G. (2007). Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(12), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-6646(08)60078-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Konig, H. H., Bernert, S., Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., Martinez, M., Vilagut, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of population health status in six European countries: Results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Medical Care, 47(2), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318184759e.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 44.Hinz, A., Kohlmann, T., Stöbel-Richter, Y., Zenger, M., & Brähler, E. (2014). The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: Psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 443–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0498-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Agborsangaya, C. B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: Measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar