Investigating the effects of rurality on stress, subjective well-being, and weight-related outcomes

IF 2.4 Q2 GEOGRAPHY Wellbeing Space and Society Pub Date : 2023-09-03 DOI:10.1016/j.wss.2023.100171
Joshua M. Gold , Adam Drewnowski , M. Robyn Andersen , Chelsea Rose , James Buszkiewicz , Jin Mou , Linda K. Ko
{"title":"Investigating the effects of rurality on stress, subjective well-being, and weight-related outcomes","authors":"Joshua M. Gold ,&nbsp;Adam Drewnowski ,&nbsp;M. Robyn Andersen ,&nbsp;Chelsea Rose ,&nbsp;James Buszkiewicz ,&nbsp;Jin Mou ,&nbsp;Linda K. Ko","doi":"10.1016/j.wss.2023.100171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Rates of obesity are significantly higher for those living in a rural versus urban setting. High levels of stress and low levels of subjective well-being (SWB) have been linked to poor weight-related behaviors and outcomes, but it is unclear if these relationships differ as a function of rurality. This study investigated the extent to which living in a rural versus urban county (\"rurality\") moderated associations between stress / subjective wellbeing (predictors) and diet quality, dietary intake of added sugars, physical activity, and BMI (outcomes).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants were recruited from urban (<em>n</em> = 355) and rural (<em>n</em> = 347) counties in Washington State and self-reported psychological, demographic, and food frequency questionnaires while physical activity behavior was measured objectively.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>After controlling for relevant covariates, levels of stress were positively associated with added sugar intake for those living in the urban county while this relationship was non-significant for those residing in the rural county. Similarly, SWB was negatively associated with added sugar intake, but only for urban residents. County of residence was also found to moderate the relationship between SWB and BMI. Higher SWB was inversely associated with BMI for those living in the urban county while no relationship was observed for rural county residents.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These findings support the hypothesis that the relationships between stress / SWB and weight function differentially based on the rurality of the residing county. This work adds to the growing body of literature highlighting the role stress and SWB play in the rural obesity disparity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52616,"journal":{"name":"Wellbeing Space and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wellbeing Space and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666558123000441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Rates of obesity are significantly higher for those living in a rural versus urban setting. High levels of stress and low levels of subjective well-being (SWB) have been linked to poor weight-related behaviors and outcomes, but it is unclear if these relationships differ as a function of rurality. This study investigated the extent to which living in a rural versus urban county ("rurality") moderated associations between stress / subjective wellbeing (predictors) and diet quality, dietary intake of added sugars, physical activity, and BMI (outcomes).

Methods

Participants were recruited from urban (n = 355) and rural (n = 347) counties in Washington State and self-reported psychological, demographic, and food frequency questionnaires while physical activity behavior was measured objectively.

Findings

After controlling for relevant covariates, levels of stress were positively associated with added sugar intake for those living in the urban county while this relationship was non-significant for those residing in the rural county. Similarly, SWB was negatively associated with added sugar intake, but only for urban residents. County of residence was also found to moderate the relationship between SWB and BMI. Higher SWB was inversely associated with BMI for those living in the urban county while no relationship was observed for rural county residents.

Conclusions

These findings support the hypothesis that the relationships between stress / SWB and weight function differentially based on the rurality of the residing county. This work adds to the growing body of literature highlighting the role stress and SWB play in the rural obesity disparity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查乡村生活对压力、主观幸福感和体重相关结果的影响
目的生活在农村地区的肥胖率明显高于城市地区。高水平的压力和低水平的主观幸福感(SWB)与体重相关的不良行为和结果有关,但尚不清楚这些关系是否因乡村性而有所不同。本研究调查了生活在农村与城市县(“乡村”)在多大程度上调节了压力/主观幸福感(预测因素)与饮食质量、饮食中添加糖的摄入量、身体活动和BMI(结果)之间的关联。方法从华盛顿州的城市(n = 355)和农村(n = 347)县招募参与者,通过自我报告的心理、人口统计和食物频率问卷进行调查,同时客观地测量身体活动行为。在控制了相关协变量后,对于生活在城市县的人来说,压力水平与添加糖摄入量呈正相关,而对于居住在农村县的人来说,这种关系不显著。同样,SWB与添加糖摄入量呈负相关,但仅限于城市居民。居住的县也被发现缓和了幸福感和BMI之间的关系。城市居民的主观幸福感与BMI呈负相关,而农村居民的主观幸福感与BMI呈负相关。结论这些发现支持了应激/主观幸福感与体重函数之间的关系因居住县的乡村性而异的假设。这项工作增加了越来越多的文献强调压力和SWB在农村肥胖差异中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wellbeing Space and Society
Wellbeing Space and Society Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
124 days
期刊最新文献
Process and practice in New Zealand Enviroschool implementation The loss of rural vital places: A case study using the social determinants of health framework The contributions of community seed saving to health and wellbeing: A qualitative study in Thunder Bay, Canada Wellbeing and sustainability in Europe in the 2010s–An empirical analysis Spatial context and informal caregivers’ Well-being: A case study of a Carer Café project in Hong Kong
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1