Are All Domains of Life Satisfaction Equal? Differential Associations With Health and Well-Being in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Growing evidence documents strong associations between overall life satisfaction and favorable health and well-being outcomes. However, because most previous studies have assessed satisfaction with one’s life as a whole, we know little about whether specific domains of life satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with income) might be driving better health and well-being outcomes. Data were from 13,752 participants in the Health and Retirement Study—a nationally representative cohort of US adults aged >or=50. We evaluated if positive changes in seven domains of life satisfaction (between t0;2008/2010 and t1;2012/2014) were associated with 35 indicators of physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health and well-being (at t2;2016/2018). Satisfaction with family life and non-work activities showed the largest associations with subsequent psychological factors, followed by satisfaction with financial situation and income. Effect estimates were double in magnitude for certain domains of life satisfaction (e.g., the association between satisfaction with family life and purpose in life (β=0.22, 95% CI:0.16,0.27) was more than twice as large as the association between satisfaction with housing and purpose in life (β=0.09, 95% CI:0.02,0.16). Further, some domains showed associations with physical health outcomes (e.g., participants with the highest satisfaction with health had a 21% decreased mortality risk (95% CI: 0.66,0.95)), health behaviors (e.g., higher satisfaction with income decreased risk of sleep problems by 11% (95% CI:0.80,0.99)), and social factors (e.g., loneliness (β: -0.16 to -0.42)). Individual domains of life satisfaction might be novel targets for interventions and policies seeking to enhance specific facets of health and well-being in our rapidly aging population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".