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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pano, Octavio, Sayón-Orea, Carmen, Hershey, María Soledad, Bes-Rastrollo, Maira, Martínez-González, Miguel A., Martínez, J. Alfredo
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