3.8 Article

Optimism and Cardiovascular Health: Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

Journal

HEALTH BEHAVIOR AND POLICY REVIEW
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 62-73

Publisher

PARIS SCHOLAR PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.14485/HBPR.2.1.6

Keywords

well-being; optimism; cardiovascular health

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HC-95159, N01-HC-95160, N01-HC-95161, N01-HC-95162, N01-HC-95163, N01HC-95164, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95166, N01-HC-95167, N01-HC-95168, N01-HC-95169]
  2. NCRR [UL1-TR-000040, UL1-TR-001079]
  3. NHLBI [T32 HL-069771-10]
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [K07CA154862] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [UL1TR000040, UL1TR001079] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R43HL095161, R21HL095165, R13HL095166, T32HL069771, R43HL095167, R43HL095160, R01HL095163, R44HL095169, R43HL095169] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We examined the association between optimism and cardiovascular health (CVH). Methods: We used data collected from adults aged 52-84 who participated in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) (N = 5134) during the first follow-up visit (2002-2004). Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine associations of optimism with ideal and intermediate CVH (with reference being poor CVH), after adjusting for socio-demographic factors and psychological ill-being. Results: Participants in the highest quartile of optimism were more likely to have intermediate [OR = 1.51, 95% Cl = 1.25, 1.82] and ideal [OR = 1.92, 95% Cl = 1.30, 2.85] CVH when compared to the least optimistic group. Individual CVH metrics of diet, physical activity, body mass index, smoking, blood sugar, and total cholesterol contributed to the overall association. Conclusions: We offer evidence for a cross-sectional association between optimism and CVH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available