RESUMO
AIMS: Lack of consensus on wellness has led to a vast number of different conceptualisations, which hinder international efforts to monitor individual-level wellness and social progress comparably. This study aimed to aid in the harmonisation of the concept by contributing to the scarce research on laypeople's views on wellness. The study investigates whether the importance of different areas of wellness varies depending on age, gender, education or socio-economic position. Furthermore, considering that wellness models are often constructed by expert panels, this study aimed to shed light on how experts' and laypeople's views on wellness vary. METHODS: Altogether, 1152 laypeople and 23 Finnish experts rated the importance of 61 systematic review-based wellness domains. Each domain received an ordinal number, which, together with the Mann-Whitney U-test or Kruskal-Wallis test, was used to examine the differences between the groups. RESULTS: Thirteen wellness domains were found at the top of the lists, regardless of whether the results were analysed based on gender, age, education or socio-economic position. When looking at the priority order of different domains, we were able to identify several differences between the expert panel and laypeople. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure the relevance of wellness models, it is vital to understand the areas that laypeople consider to be important for their comprehensive wellness. This study offers 13 domains that could be combined with an expert view on wellness and used as a starting point for creating a more comprehensive, inclusive and better-suited wellness instrument.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Unhealthy behaviours increase cancer risk. However, lifestyle habits co-occur and their joint association with cancer is not known. METHODS: A survey among midlife employees included data on lifestyle habits and covariates (N = 8960, response rate 67%, 80% women). The joint variables of lifestyle habits were prospectively linked with register data on cancer diagnosis (mean follow-up time 12.1 years). Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR), and their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Smoking was associated with subsequent cancer risk and the association was strengthened by inactivity (HR 1.94, 1.46-2.59) and unhealthy diet (HR 1.92, 1.43-2.57). Smoking combined with both low (HR 1.70, 1.19-2.41) and moderate (HR 1.68, 1.27-2.23) alcohol consumption was also associated with increased cancer risk, as was unhealthy diet combined with moderate alcohol consumption (HR 1.55, 1.17-2.06) and inactivity (HR 1.44, 1.10-1.88). Inactivity combined with either low (HR 1.44, 1.06-1.96) or moderate (HR 1.47, 1.11-1.95) alcohol use was associated with subsequent cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Key unhealthy behaviours have additive effects. Preventive measures should be targeted to especially smokers and those having several adverse lifestyle habits.