• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

了解我们所处的良好状态:斯坦福生活之泉研究中幸福感的邻里层面社会和环境相关因素。

Understanding Where We Are Well: Neighborhood-Level Social and Environmental Correlates of Well-Being in the Stanford Well for Life Study.

机构信息

Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2ER, UK.

Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 May 20;16(10):1786. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16101786.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph16101786
PMID:31137589
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6571676/
Abstract

Individual well-being is a complex concept that varies among and between individuals and is impacted by individual, interpersonal, community, organizational, policy and environmental factors. This research explored associations between select environmental characteristics measured at the ZIP code level and individual well-being. Participants ( = 3288, mean age = 41.4 years, 71.0% female, 57.9% white) were drawn from a registry of individuals who completed the Stanford WELL for Life Scale (SWLS), a 76-question online survey that asks about 10 domains of well-being: social connectedness, lifestyle and daily practices, physical health, stress and resilience, emotional and mental health, purpose and meaning, sense of self, financial security and satisfaction, spirituality and religiosity, and exploration and creativity. Based on a nationally-representative 2018 study of associations between an independent well-being measure and county-level characteristics, we selected twelve identical or analogous neighborhood (ZIP-code level) indicators to test against the SWLS measure and its ten constituent domains. Data were collected from secondary sources to describe socio-economic (median household income, percent unemployment, percent child poverty), demographic (race/ethnicity), and physical environment (commute by bicycle and public transit), and healthcare (number of healthcare facilities, percent mammogram screenings, percent preventable hospital stays). All continuous neighborhood factors were re-classified into quantile groups. Linear mixed models were fit to assess relationships between each neighborhood measure and each of the ten domains of well-being, as well as the overall SWLS well-being measure, and were adjusted for spatial autocorrelation and individual-level covariates. In models exploring associations between the overall SWLS score and neighborhood characteristics, six of the twelve neighborhood factors exhibited significant differences between quantile groups ( < 0.05). All of the ten SWLS domains had at least one instance of significant ( < 0.05) variation across quantile groups for a neighborhood factor; stress and resilience, emotional and mental health, and financial security had the greatest number of significant associations (6/12 factors), followed by physical health (5/12 factors) and social connectedness (4/12 factors). All but one of the neighborhood factors (number of Federally Qualified Health Centers) showed at least one significant association with a well-being domain. Among the neighborhood factors with the most associations with well-being domains were rate of preventable hospital stays (7/10 domains), percent holding bachelor's degrees (6/10 domains), and median income and percent with less than high school completion (5/10 domains). These observational insights suggest that neighborhood factors are associated with individuals' overall self-rated well-being, though variation exists among its constituent domains. Further research that employs such multi-dimensional measures of well-being is needed to determine targets for intervention at the neighborhood level that may improve well-being at both the individual and, ultimately, neighborhood levels.

摘要

个体幸福感是一个复杂的概念,在个体之间存在差异,并受到个体、人际、社区、组织、政策和环境因素的影响。本研究探讨了在邮政编码层面测量的特定环境特征与个体幸福感之间的关联。参与者(=3288,平均年龄=41.4 岁,71.0%为女性,57.9%为白人)来自斯坦福 WELL for Life 量表(SWLS)的参与者登记处,这是一项 76 个问题的在线调查,询问了幸福感的 10 个领域:社会联系、生活方式和日常实践、身体健康、压力和弹性、情绪和心理健康、目标和意义、自我意识、财务安全和满意度、精神信仰和宗教信仰以及探索和创造力。基于对 2018 年一项关于独立幸福感衡量标准与县级特征之间关联的全国性研究,我们选择了 12 个相同或类似的邻里(邮政编码层面)指标,以测试与 SWLS 衡量标准及其 10 个组成部分之间的关系。数据从二手资料中收集,用于描述社会经济(家庭中位数收入、失业率、儿童贫困率)、人口统计学(种族/族裔)和物理环境(骑自行车和公共交通通勤)以及医疗保健(医疗设施数量、乳房 X 光筛查百分比、可预防住院百分比)。所有连续的邻里因素都被重新分类为分位数组。线性混合模型用于评估每个邻里措施与幸福感的十个领域以及 SWLS 整体幸福感衡量标准之间的关系,并针对空间自相关和个体水平协变量进行了调整。在探索 SWLS 总分与邻里特征之间关联的模型中,有六个邻里因素在分位数组之间存在显著差异(<0.05)。在邻里因素中,有十个 SWLS 领域中的每一个都至少有一个在分位数组之间存在显著差异(<0.05);压力和弹性、情绪和心理健康以及财务安全领域的关联最多(12 个因素中的 6 个),其次是身体健康(12 个因素中的 5 个)和社会联系(12 个因素中的 4 个)。除了一个邻里因素(合格的联邦医疗中心数量)外,所有因素都与幸福感领域有至少一个显著关联。在与幸福感领域关联最多的邻里因素中,有可预防的住院率(10 个领域中的 7 个)、拥有学士学位的百分比(10 个领域中的 6 个)以及中位数收入和高中以下学历完成率(10 个领域中的 5 个)。这些观察结果表明,邻里因素与个体的整体自我报告幸福感相关,尽管其组成领域存在差异。需要进一步研究采用多维幸福感衡量标准,以确定邻里层面的干预目标,这可能会提高个体和最终邻里层面的幸福感。

相似文献

1
Understanding Where We Are Well: Neighborhood-Level Social and Environmental Correlates of Well-Being in the Stanford Well for Life Study.了解我们所处的良好状态:斯坦福生活之泉研究中幸福感的邻里层面社会和环境相关因素。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 May 20;16(10):1786. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16101786.
2
Identifying county characteristics associated with resident well-being: A population based study.识别与居民幸福感相关的县级特征:基于人群的研究。
PLoS One. 2018 May 23;13(5):e0196720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196720. eCollection 2018.
3
Perceived spatial stigma, body mass index and blood pressure: a global positioning system study among low-income housing residents in New York City.感知到的空间污名、体重指数与血压:一项针对纽约市低收入住房居民的全球定位系统研究
Geospat Health. 2016 May 31;11(2):399. doi: 10.4081/gh.2016.399.
4
Socioeconomic and race/ethnic disparities in observed park quality.观察到的公园质量方面的社会经济和种族/族裔差异。
BMC Public Health. 2016 May 12;16:395. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3055-4.
5
Assessing patterns of spatial behavior in health studies: their socio-demographic determinants and associations with transportation modes (the RECORD Cohort Study).健康研究中空间行为模式的评估:其社会人口学决定因素以及与交通方式的关联(RECORD队列研究)
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Oct;119:64-73. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.026. Epub 2014 Jul 11.
6
Personal and neighborhood socioeconomic status and indices of neighborhood walk-ability predict body mass index in New York City.个人及邻里社会经济地位与邻里步行适宜性指数可预测纽约市的体重指数。
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Dec;67(12):1951-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.036. Epub 2008 Oct 25.
7
Neighborhood socio-economic context and emergency department visits for dental care in a U.S. Midwestern metropolis.美国中西部大都市的邻里社会经济环境与急诊就诊治疗牙科疾病的关系
Public Health. 2015 Mar;129(3):252-7. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.11.014. Epub 2015 Feb 19.
8
Assessing quality of life using WHOQOL-BREF: a cross-sectional study on the association between quality of life and neighborhood environmental satisfaction, and the mediating effect of health-related behaviors.采用 WHOQOL-BREF 评估生活质量:一项关于生活质量与邻里环境满意度之间关系的横断面研究,以及健康相关行为的中介作用。
BMC Public Health. 2018 Sep 12;18(1):1113. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5942-3.
9
Modeling Pediatric Body Mass Index and Neighborhood Environment at Different Spatial Scales.建立不同空间尺度下的儿童体质量指数与社区环境模型。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Mar 8;15(3):473. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15030473.
10
Socioeconomic Inequalities in Psychological Distress among Urban Adults: The Moderating Role of Neighborhood Social Cohesion.城市成年人心理困扰中的社会经济不平等:邻里社会凝聚力的调节作用。
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 9;11(6):e0157119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157119. eCollection 2016.

引用本文的文献

1
Income and education show distinct links to health and happiness in daily life.收入和教育在日常生活中与健康和幸福呈现出明显的联系。
Nat Hum Behav. 2025 Aug 8. doi: 10.1038/s41562-025-02264-9.
2
Cohort study examining social determinants of health and their association with mortality among hospitalised adults in New York and California.队列研究考察纽约州和加利福尼亚州住院成年人的健康社会决定因素及其与死亡率的关联。
BMJ Public Health. 2025 Mar 22;3(1):e001266. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-001266. eCollection 2025 Jan.
3
Diet Quality and Resilience through Adulthood: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the WELL for Life Study.

本文引用的文献

1
Maximizing the promise of citizen science to advance health and prevent disease.最大化公民科学在促进健康和预防疾病方面的潜力。
Prev Med. 2019 Feb;119:44-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.016. Epub 2018 Dec 26.
2
Well-being in metrics and policy.衡量标准与政策中的福祉。
Science. 2018 Oct 19;362(6412):287-288. doi: 10.1126/science.aau5234. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
3
Identifying county characteristics associated with resident well-being: A population based study.识别与居民幸福感相关的县级特征:基于人群的研究。
成年期的饮食质量和韧性:基于“健康生活研究”的横断面分析。
Nutrients. 2024 May 31;16(11):1724. doi: 10.3390/nu16111724.
4
Measurement of flourishing: a scoping review.蓬勃发展的衡量:一项范围综述
Front Psychol. 2024 Feb 1;15:1293943. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1293943. eCollection 2024.
5
Benefit finding and well-being over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.新冠疫情期间的获益发现和幸福感。
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 27;18(7):e0288332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288332. eCollection 2023.
6
Contemplative Practices Behavior Is Positively Associated with Well-Being in Three Global Multi-Regional Stanford WELL for Life Cohorts.沉思实践行为与三个全球多地区斯坦福生命 WELL 队列的幸福感呈正相关。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 18;19(20):13485. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013485.
7
An in-depth comparison of well-being among Latinx and non-Latinx White adults: A cautionary tale.拉丁裔与非拉丁裔白人成年人幸福感的深入比较:一个警示故事。
Prev Med Rep. 2021 Aug 3;24:101513. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101513. eCollection 2021 Dec.
8
Testing the effectiveness of community-engaged citizen science to promote physical activity, foster healthier neighborhood environments, and advance health equity in vulnerable communities: The Steps for Change randomized controlled trial design and methods.测试社区参与式公民科学在促进身体活动、改善健康邻里环境和促进弱势社区健康公平方面的有效性:改变步骤随机对照试验的设计和方法。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Sep;108:106526. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106526. Epub 2021 Aug 8.
9
Associations of park access, park use and physical activity in parks with wellbeing in an Asian urban environment: a cross-sectional study.亚洲城市环境中公园可达性、公园使用和公园内体力活动与幸福感的关系:一项横断面研究。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Jul 2;18(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01147-2.
10
Testing the effectiveness of physical activity advice delivered via text messaging vs. human phone advisors in a Latino population: The On The Move randomized controlled trial design and methods.在拉丁裔人群中,通过短信与人类电话顾问提供的体育活动建议的有效性测试:On The Move 随机对照试验设计和方法。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2020 Aug;95:106084. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106084. Epub 2020 Jul 11.
PLoS One. 2018 May 23;13(5):e0196720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196720. eCollection 2018.
4
The coefficient of determination and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded.重访和扩展广义线性混合效应模型的决定系数和组内相关系数。
J R Soc Interface. 2017 Sep;14(134). doi: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0213. Epub 2017 Sep 13.
5
Between exposure, access and use: Reconsidering foodscape influences on dietary behaviours.在接触、获取与食用之间:重新审视食物环境对饮食行为的影响。
Health Place. 2017 Mar;44:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.12.005. Epub 2017 Jan 11.
6
Leveraging Citizen Science and Information Technology for Population Physical Activity Promotion.利用公民科学和信息技术促进人群身体活动
Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2016 May 15;1(4):30-44.
7
The Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool: a computerized tool to assess active living environments.斯坦福健康社区发现工具:一个用于评估积极生活环境的计算机化工具。
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Apr;44(4):e41-e47. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.028.
8
Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults.邻里效应对低收入成年人长期福祉的影响。
Science. 2012 Sep 21;337(6101):1505-10. doi: 10.1126/science.1224648.
9
Environment and Physical Activity Dynamics: The Role of Residential Self-selection.环境与身体活动动态:居住自我选择的作用。
Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011 Jan 1;12(1):54-60. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.09.003.
10
Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing.自然环境的休闲价值与邻里满意度、身体活动、肥胖及幸福感的关系。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008 Apr;62(4):e2. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.062414.