4.6 Article

Health-Related Behavior, Profile of Health Locus of Control and Acceptance of Illness in Patients Suffering from Chronic Somatic Diseases

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063920

关键词

-

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine health-related behaviors, profile of health locus of control (HLC), and to assess the relationships between these constructs among patients suffering from chronic somatic diseases. Material and Methods: Three-hundred adult patients suffering from various chronic diseases participated in the study. The patients' mean age was 54.6 years (SD = 17.57). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the different clinical groups in health-related behavior, acceptance of illness, internal HLC or chance HLC. Patients with neurologic conditions showed slightly lower powerful others HLC than did some other clinical groups. Health-related behavior was significantly positively related to all three categories of HLC, with most prominent associations observed with powerful others HLC. Only one type of health-related behavior - preventive behavior - correlated significantly and negatively with acceptance of illness. Differences in the frequency of health-related behavior were also found due to gender (women showing more healthy nutritional habits than men), age (older subjects showing more frequent health-promoting behavior), education (higher education was associated with less frequent health-promoting behavior) and marital status (widowed subjects reporting more frequent health-promoting behavior). Conclusions: Health-related behavior in patients with chronic diseases seems to be unrelated to a specific diagnosis; however it shows associations with both internal and external HLC. Sociodemographic factors are also crucial factors determining frequency of health-related behavior in such patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据