Cargando…
Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index
Healthy and unhealthy lifestyles are tightly linked to general health and well-being. However, measurements of well-being have failed to include elements of health and easy to interpret information for patients seeking to improve lifestyles. Therefore, this study aimed to create an index for the ass...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9222586/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35742139 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061088 |
_version_ | 1784732902196510720 |
---|---|
author | Pano, Octavio Sayón-Orea, Carmen Hershey, María Soledad Bes-Rastrollo, Maira Martínez-González, Miguel A. Martínez, J. Alfredo |
author_facet | Pano, Octavio Sayón-Orea, Carmen Hershey, María Soledad Bes-Rastrollo, Maira Martínez-González, Miguel A. Martínez, J. Alfredo |
author_sort | Pano, Octavio |
collection | PubMed |
description | Healthy and unhealthy lifestyles are tightly linked to general health and well-being. However, measurements of well-being have failed to include elements of health and easy to interpret information for patients seeking to improve lifestyles. Therefore, this study aimed to create an index for the assessment of general health and well-being along with two cut-off points: the lifestyle and well-being index (LWB-I). This was a cross-sectional analysis of 15,168 individuals. Internally valid multivariate linear models were constructed using key lifestyle features predicting a modified Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and used to score the LWB-I. Categorization of the LWB-I was based on self-perceived health (SPH) and analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Optimal cut-points identified individuals with poor and excellent SPH. Lifestyle and well-being were adequately accounted for using 12 lifestyle items. SPH groups had increasingly healthier lifestyle features and LWB-I scores; optimal cut-point for poor SPH were scores below 80 points (AUC: 0.80 (0.79, 0.82); sensitivity 75.7%, specificity 72.3%)) and above 86 points for excellent SPH (AUC: 0.67 (0.66, 0.69); sensitivity 61.4%, specificity 63.3%). Lifestyle and well-being were quantitatively scored based on their associations with a general health measure in order to create the LWB-I along with two cut points. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9222586 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92225862022-06-24 Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index Pano, Octavio Sayón-Orea, Carmen Hershey, María Soledad Bes-Rastrollo, Maira Martínez-González, Miguel A. Martínez, J. Alfredo Healthcare (Basel) Article Healthy and unhealthy lifestyles are tightly linked to general health and well-being. However, measurements of well-being have failed to include elements of health and easy to interpret information for patients seeking to improve lifestyles. Therefore, this study aimed to create an index for the assessment of general health and well-being along with two cut-off points: the lifestyle and well-being index (LWB-I). This was a cross-sectional analysis of 15,168 individuals. Internally valid multivariate linear models were constructed using key lifestyle features predicting a modified Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and used to score the LWB-I. Categorization of the LWB-I was based on self-perceived health (SPH) and analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Optimal cut-points identified individuals with poor and excellent SPH. Lifestyle and well-being were adequately accounted for using 12 lifestyle items. SPH groups had increasingly healthier lifestyle features and LWB-I scores; optimal cut-point for poor SPH were scores below 80 points (AUC: 0.80 (0.79, 0.82); sensitivity 75.7%, specificity 72.3%)) and above 86 points for excellent SPH (AUC: 0.67 (0.66, 0.69); sensitivity 61.4%, specificity 63.3%). Lifestyle and well-being were quantitatively scored based on their associations with a general health measure in order to create the LWB-I along with two cut points. MDPI 2022-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9222586/ /pubmed/35742139 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061088 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Pano, Octavio Sayón-Orea, Carmen Hershey, María Soledad Bes-Rastrollo, Maira Martínez-González, Miguel A. Martínez, J. Alfredo Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index |
title | Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index |
title_full | Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index |
title_fullStr | Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index |
title_full_unstemmed | Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index |
title_short | Development of a General Health Score Based on 12 Objective Metabolic and Lifestyle Items: The Lifestyle and Well-Being Index |
title_sort | development of a general health score based on 12 objective metabolic and lifestyle items: the lifestyle and well-being index |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9222586/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35742139 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061088 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT panooctavio developmentofageneralhealthscorebasedon12objectivemetabolicandlifestyleitemsthelifestyleandwellbeingindex AT sayonoreacarmen developmentofageneralhealthscorebasedon12objectivemetabolicandlifestyleitemsthelifestyleandwellbeingindex AT hersheymariasoledad developmentofageneralhealthscorebasedon12objectivemetabolicandlifestyleitemsthelifestyleandwellbeingindex AT besrastrollomaira developmentofageneralhealthscorebasedon12objectivemetabolicandlifestyleitemsthelifestyleandwellbeingindex AT martinezgonzalezmiguela developmentofageneralhealthscorebasedon12objectivemetabolicandlifestyleitemsthelifestyleandwellbeingindex AT martinezjalfredo developmentofageneralhealthscorebasedon12objectivemetabolicandlifestyleitemsthelifestyleandwellbeingindex |