Open Access

Effects of social activity on health-related quality of life according to age and gender: an observational study

  • Hye Ki Park1, 2,
  • Sung Youn Chun1, 2,
  • Young Choi1, 2,
  • Seo Yoon Lee2, 3,
  • Seung Ju Kim1, 2 and
  • Eun-Cheol Park2, 4Email author
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201513:140

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0331-4

Received: 20 March 2015

Accepted: 23 August 2015

Published: 11 September 2015

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between types and amount of social activity and health-related quality of life according to gender and age group.

Methods

This study used data from the Community Health Survey (CHS), which was collected in 2011 and consisted of 229,226 participants aged 19 or older. A linear mixed effects model was used to evaluate the factors influencing health-related quality of life among individuals tracked in the CHS and, in particular, to analyze the associations between the amount and types of social activities participated in and the EuroQol EQ-5D assessment.

Results

We found that the average quality of life increased according to the amount of social activities individuals participated in (zero = 89.30, one = 93.28, two = 95.25, three = 96.27, four = 96.85). When people participated in one social activity, social activity was more strongly associated with EQ-5D in the elderly age group (males: 19–34 years = 0.195, 35–49 years = 0.642, 50–64 years = 1.716, ≥65 years = 4.408; females: 19–34 years = 0.170, 35–49 years = 0.502, 50–64 years = 1.411, ≥65 years = 4.180). More participation was positively associated with higher EQ-5D (one = 1.939, two = 2.377, three = 2.439, four = 2.515, p for trend < 0.0001). In females, those who participated in relationship organizations had a higher EQ-5D than those who participated in other types of social activities (Females ≥65 age group; Relationship = 4.373, Leisure = 2.620, Religion = 1.842, Charity = 1.544).

Conclusion

There was a positive association between the increase in the number of social activities and increase in health-related quality of life, especially when evaluated in terms of type of social activities and health-related quality of life according to gender and age group.

Introduction

Quality of life has now become a significantly important endpoint in medical care. The World Health Organization’s definition of health includes mental and social health along with physical health [1]. At the same time, there are studies that support the idea that participating in social activities increases the quality of life [2]. There are many types of social activities that are effective for enhancing the quality of life. A previous study found that religious social activities were positively associated with life satisfaction [3]. Close relationships with friends and family and participation in leisure activities are also positively associated with high quality of life [4]. In addition, participating in volunteer work is closely associated with quality of life [5]. Thus, there are many studies that have recognized the association between participating in social activities and better quality of life. However, to our knowledge, most of the previous studies focused on only one kind of social activity type [6]; thus, the differences in effectiveness between particular social activities were not investigated. Furthermore, previous studies focused on limited populations such as adolescents [7], the elderly [8], or physically or mentally disabled patients [9, 10]. Therefore, we undertook the present study to examine whether social activity was associated or not with health-related quality of life in the general population according to age and gender. Moreover, as we included four types of effective social activities (religion, relationship, leisure, and charity), we could determine the specific associations of each type of social activity on quality of life. Specifically, this study also aimed to evaluate the association between social activity and quality of life by gender and age group.

Methods

Data collection and participants

This study used data from Community Health Survey (CHS), which was collected in 2011. The target population of the CHS was individuals who were older than 18 years of age anywhere in the Republic of Korea. The total population included in that survey was 229,226 individuals; we omitted individuals who had missing data about educational status, perceived health status, perceived stress status, marital status, economic activity status, family income, depression diagnosis, chronic and acute disease or accident and addiction experience, hypertension diagnosis, diabetes mellitus diagnosis, cerebral infarction diagnosis, cardiac infarction diagnosis, angina pectoris diagnosis, arthritis diagnosis, osteoporosis diagnosis, tuberculosis diagnosis, asthma diagnosis, EuroQol EQ-VAS and EQ-5D. Therefore, we used 209,315 people (male 94,531, female 114,784) for this analysis.

The CHS included 239 questions on health behavior, physical characteristics, vaccination, morbidity, prescription use, accidents, addictions, activity level, quality of life, education, and economic status, etc. across 18 fields. The CHS had previously created a “sample extraction framework” used the entire country’s address data from the Ministry of Security and Public Administration and the housing types and the household data from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. Subsequently, based on this framework, the CHS extracted about 900 participants from each community health center. After extracting the participants, a well- trained investigator visited each participant’s house to perform the survey. The investigators interviewed participants one-to-one and entered the data into a computer. The CHS has been approved and deliberated every year by the Institutional Review Board of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2010. The approval code for 2011 was 2011-05CON-04-C. All participants received an explanation about the CHS and completed a consent form before they participated in the research.

We stratified the population by age and gender in order to determine the most effective social activity specific to these age groups. We stratified individuals by age into the following groups: 19 to 34 years old, 35 to 49 years old, 50 to 64 years old, and older than 65 years. For educational status, we categorized into less high school, high school graduate and college graduate. Participants who dropped out of school at any point were placed in the lower educational status group. Perceived health status was categorized as either good or bad. Good condition included very good, good, or normal. Bad condition included bad or very bad. Perceived stress status was also categorized into two groups: yes (and the magnitude of the stress) or no. Marital status was categorized to three groups: 1) married, 2) divorced, separated, or widowed, and 3) single. Family income was divided into four levels. Co-morbidities included chronic and acute diseases or accidents and addictions, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cerebral infarction, angina pectoris, cardiac infarction, tuberculosis, or asthma diagnosis. Co-morbidities were categorized as zero co-morbidity, one co-morbidity, two co-morbidities, and three or more co-morbidities.

Health-related quality of life

For estimating health-related quality of life, we used the EQ-5D questionnaire which included questions about mobility; M, self-care; SC, usual activities; UA, pain/discomfort; PD and anxiety/depression; AD. Each of the indexes consisted of no problems; level 1, some/moderate problems; level 2, and severe problems; level 3 [11]. We analyzed five EQ-5D indexes calculated using a weight-scoring system according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines [12]: EQ-5D index = 1 - (0.05 + 0.096*M2 + 0.418*M3 + 0.046*SC2 + 0.136*SC3 + 0.051*UA2 + 0.208*UA3 + 0.037*PD2 + 0.151*PD3 + 0.043*AD2 + 0.158*AD3 + 0.05*N3). If the mobility level was 2 then “M2” was defined as 1; otherwise, “M2” was defined as 0. Similarly, if the self-care level was 3 then “SC3” was defined 1; otherwise, “SC3” was 0. If all EQ-5D indexes scored 1, then the weighted score became 1.

Social activity

The CHS included four kinds of social activities: religion, relationship, leisure, and charity. If an individual regularly participated in a social activity at least once a month at the time of investigation, then the individuals were placed in the “Participating” group for that social activity. In order to investigate the association between higher participation and EQ-5D, we added up the number of social activity participated in by each individual to form “Social activity count” variable and evaluate the association with health-related quality of life. In addition, we also made “Social activity type” variable to compare the amount of association between the four kinds of social activities (religion, relationship, leisure, and charity).

Statistical analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze statistical differences in EQ-5D results between groups. The CHS 2011 was community represented data; therefore, we used a generalized linear mixed model to obtain more accurate results of the factors influencing health-related quality of life revealed by the CHS 2011 and, in particular, to analyze the associations among the level of participation in social activities, the type of social activity, and the EQ-5D assessment by considering characteristic of area where the survey was performed. We used an unstructured model for the covariance structure, which calculated each correlation separately. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

Table 1 presents the study participants' socio-demographic characteristics. The total number of participants was 209,315. In the general population, the group who participated in one social activity ranks first, followed by the group who participated in two social activities (one = 37.4 %, two = 26.0 %). Male groups had the same order of ranking (one = 37.1 %, two = 27.5 %). However, the female group that had participated in none of the social activities ranked second (one = 37.6 %, zero = 26.6 %).
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics Unit: N (weighted %)

 

Total

Male

Female

Social activityb count

 4

4476

(2.4)

1917

(2.2)

2559

(2.7)

 3

16,317

(8.7)

7623

(8.7)

8694

(8.7)

 2

50,775

(26.0)

24,367

(27.5)

26,408

(24.5)

 1

81,326

(37.4)

37,074

(37.1)

44,252

(37.6)

 0

56,421

(25.6)

23,550

(24.5)

32,871

(26.6)

Age group

 19–34

39,904

(28.5)

18,150

(29.6)

21,754

(27.4)

 35–49

60,892

(33.6)

28,882

(34.6)

32,010

(32.7)

 50–64

57,766

(24.1)

26,501

(24.0)

31,265

(24.2)

  ≥ 65

50,753

(13.8)

20,998

(11.8)

29,755

(15.7)

Education

 Less than high school

82,660

(24.7)

29,378

(18.3)

53,282

(31.0)

 High school graduate

71,365

(39.4)

35,980

(41.8)

35,385

(37.0)

 College graduate

55,290

(36.0)

29,173

(40.0)

26,117

(32.0)

Perceived health status

 Good

164,909

(85.2)

78,690

(88.3)

86,219

(82.2)

 Bad

44,406

(14.8)

15,841

(11.7)

28,565

(17.8)

Stress awareness

 Yes

55,365

(28.3)

24,374

(28.7)

30,991

(28.0)

 No

153,950

(71.7)

70,157

(71.3)

83,793

(72.0)

Marital status

 Single

29,985

(21.8)

16,582

(25.9)

13,403

(17.7)

 Separated/Divorced/Widowed

34,425

(12.2)

7529

(6.1)

26,896

(18.1)

 Married

144,905

(66.0)

70,420

(68.0)

74,485

(64.1)

Family income (thousands won)

  < 1200

41,738

(10.9)

15,778

(8.9)

25,960

(12.8)

 1200–3000

61,945

(27.2)

28,796

(27.1)

33,149

(27.3)

 3000–4800

49,936

(27.2)

23,850

(28.4)

26,086

(25.9)

  ≥ 4800

55,696

(34.8)

26,107

(35.6)

29,589

(34.0)

Economic activity

 Yes

131,665

(63.6)

73,723

(78.2)

57,942

(49.1)

 No

77,650

(36.4)

20,808

(21.8)

56,842

(50.9)

Depression diagnosis

 Yes

5310

(2.2)

1113

(1.1)

4197

(3.4)

 No

204,005

(97.8)

93,418

(98.9)

110,587

(96.6)

Co-morbiditya count

  ≥ 3

16,934

(5.2)

4037

(2.8)

12,897

(7.5)

 2

23,336

(8.0)

8697

(6.6)

14,639

(9.3)

 1

46,701

(19.8)

22,222

(20.4)

24,479

(19.1)

 0

122,344

(67.1)

59,575

(70.2)

62,769

(64.1)

Cultural facilityc

5.15 ± 2.88

5.17 ± 2.91

5.13 ± 2.86

Welfare facilityc

12.61 ± 4.52

12.65 ± 4.52

12.58 ± 4.52

Physical facilityc

112.84 ± 9.57

112.93 ± 9.63

112.77 ± 9.51

GRDPc

27.64 ± 8.25

27.64 ± 8.33

27.64 ± 8.19

Hospitalc

7590.47 ± 6705.49

7561.52 ± 6691.73

7614.32 ± 6716.74

Total

209,315

(100.0)

94,531

(100.0)

114,784

(100.0)

aCo-morbidity included chronic and acute diseases, accidents or addictions, hypertension diagnosis, diabetes mellitus diagnosis, cerebral infarction diagnosis, cardiac infarction, angina pectoris diagnosis, arthritis diagnosis, osteoporosis diagnosis, tuberculosis diagnosis or asthma diagnosis

bSocial activity included religion, relation, leisure, or charity

cMean ± SD, GRDP: gross regional domestic product

Table 2 presents the average quality of life according to individuals’ level of participation in social activities. In the general population, we determined a strong positive correlation between the number of social activities an individual participated in and the average quality of life (zero = 89.30, one = 93.28, two = 95.25, three = 96.27, four = 96.85). Males and females showed similar results.
Table 2

Average quality of life according to amount of participation in social activities

 

Total

Male

Female

 

Mean

Std. dev.

p-value

Mean

Std. dev.

p-value

Mean

Std. dev.

p-value

Social activityb count

 4

96.85

7.52

<.0001

98.09

5.59

<.0001

95.93

8.57

<.0001

 3

96.27

7.77

 

97.55

6.36

 

95.15

8.66

 

 2

95.25

9.35

 

97.09

7.42

 

93.56

10.55

 

 1

93.28

12.08

 

95.30

10.47

 

91.59

13.05

 

 0

89.30

17.77

 

91.25

17.39

 

87.90

17.91

 

Age group

 19–34

98.05

5.48

<.0001

98.52

5.23

<.0001

97.65

5.66

<.0001

 35–49

97.13

7.18

 

97.69

7.08

 

96.62

7.23

 

 50–64

93.76

11.34

 

95.57

10.48

 

92.22

11.80

 

  ≥ 65

83.19

18.78

 

87.48

18.16

 

80.17

18.63

 

Education

 Less than high school

86.95

16.98

<.0001

89.97

16.50

<.0001

85.29

17.02

<.0001

 High school graduate

96.41

8.77

 

96.70

9.24

 

96.12

8.26

 

 College graduate

97.62

6.41

 

97.93

6.51

 

97.26

6.27

 

Perceived health status

 Good

96.55

7.38

<.0001

97.54

6.41

<.0001

95.64

8.06

<.0001

 Bad

79.81

20.05

 

82.33

21.20

 

78.41

19.24

 

Stress awareness

 Yes

89.60

16.75

<.0001

92.64

15.52

<.0001

87.20

17.29

<.0001

 No

94.22

11.46

 

95.80

10.24

 

92.89

12.24

 

Marital status

 Single

97.39

7.94

<.0001

97.54

8.19

<.0001

97.20

7.62

<.0001

 Separated/Divorced/Widowed

85.43

17.63

 

91.38

15.19

 

83.76

17.90

 

 Married

93.88

12.15

 

94.77

12.12

 

93.04

12.12

 

Family income (thousands won)

  < 1200

83.87

18.53

<.0001

86.81

19.01

<.0001

82.09

18.00

<.0001

 1200–3000

93.19

12.60

 

94.86

11.42

 

91.74

13.37

 

 3000–4800

96.13

9.02

 

97.38

7.68

 

94.98

9.95

 

  ≥ 4800

96.81

8.09

 

97.89

6.58

 

95.85

9.12

 

Economic activity

 Yes

95.84

8.40

<.0001

96.99

7.21

<.0001

94.38

9.50

<.0001

 No

88.17

17.75

 

87.90

19.89

 

88.27

16.90

 

Depression diagnosis

 Yes

79.80

20.74

<.0001

79.02

23.84

<.0001

80.00

19.83

<.0001

 No

93.34

12.80

 

95.18

11.56

 

91.78

13.56

 

Co-morbiditya count

  ≥ 3

74.98

21.07

<.0001

77.12

23.75

<.0001

74.32

20.11

<.0001

 2

85.06

16.93

 

87.49

18.11

 

83.62

16.02

 

 1

92.07

12.67

 

93.58

12.34

 

90.69

12.80

 

 0

97.36

6.78

 

97.82

6.60

 

96.91

6.91

 

Total

92.99

13.23

<.0001

94.99

11.91

<.0001

91.35

14.02

<.0001

aCo-morbidity included chronic and acute diseases, accidents, or addictions, hypertension diagnosis, diabetes mellitus diagnosis, cerebral infarction diagnosis, cardiac infarction, angina pectoris diagnosis, arthritis diagnosis, osteoporosis diagnosis, tuberculosis diagnosis or asthma diagnosis

bSocial activity included religion, relationship, leisure, or charity

(adjusted by the number of cultural facility, welfare facility, physical facility, GRDP, Hospital in the region)

Table 3 presents the results of the generalized linear mixed model analysis, which assessed the association between amount of social activity participation and the quality of life. When all covariates were adjusted, in the general population those who participated in one or more social activities had higher EQ-5D scores compared with those who never participated in social activities. Furthermore, we found that more participation was positively associated with the higher EQ-5D (one = 1.939, two = 2.377, three = 2.439, four = 2.515, p for trend < 0.0001). Males and females followed similar trends as the general population.
Table 3

The association between amount of social activity and quality of life

 

Total

Male

Female

 

β

S.E

p-value

β

S.E

p-value

β

S.E

p-value

Social activityb count

 4

2.515

0.1607

<.0001

2.484

0.2322

<.0001

2.501

0.2210

<.0001

 3

2.439

0.0936

<.0001

2.347

0.1313

<.0001

2.468

0.1321

<.0001

 2

2.377

0.0645

<.0001

2.209

0.0918

<.0001

2.508

0.0903

<.0001

 1

1.939

0.0567

<.0001

2.007

0.0819

<.0001

1.845

0.0781

<.0001

 0

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

 P for trend

  

<.0001

  

<.0001

  

<.0001

Age group

 19–34

4.188

0.1114

<.0001

2.222

0.1532

<.0001

5.509

0.1636

<.0001

 35–49

3.137

0.0892

<.0001

1.186

0.1211

<.0001

4.487

0.1349

<.0001

 50–64

3.329

0.0721

<.0001

1.748

0.1024

<.0001

4.355

0.1031

<.0001

  ≥ 65

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

 P for trend

  

<.0001

  

<.0001

  

<.0001

Education

 Less then high school

−1.349

0.0795

<.0001

−1.506

0.1040

<.0001

−0.985

0.1221

<.0001

 High school graduate

0.140

0.0598

0.0193

0.156

0.0789

0.0484

0.197

0.0900

0.0286

 College graduate

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Perceived health status

 Good

8.467

0.0662

<.0001

8.566

0.0985

<.0001

8.258

0.0892

<.0001

 Bad

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Stress awareness

 Yes

−3.187

0.0518

<.0001

−2.607

0.0734

<.0001

−3.623

0.0724

<.0001

 No

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Marital status

 Single

−0.359

0.0840

<.0001

0.579

0.1150

<.0001

−0.375

0.1257

0.0029

 Separation/Divorced/Widowed

−1.514

0.0664

<.0001

−0.143

0.1186

0.2276

−1.727

0.0848

<.0001

 Married

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Family income (thousands won)

  < 1200

−2.029

0.0820

<.0001

−2.585

0.1194

<.0001

−1.567

0.1125

<.0001

 1200–3000

−0.044

0.0633

0.4840

−0.185

0.0881

0.0361

−0.040

0.0899

0.6590

 3000–4800

0.009

0.0633

0.8870

−0.051

0.0869

0.5588

−0.008

0.0906

0.9282

  ≥ 4800

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Economy activity

 Yes

2.640

0.0518

<.0001

4.246

0.0881

<.0001

1.960

0.0662

<.0001

 No

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Depression diagnosis

 Yes

−5.428

0.1438

<.0001

−8.173

0.2925

<.0001

−4.674

0.1691

<.0001

 No

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Co-morbiditya count

  ≥ 3

−10.344

0.1013

<.0001

−10.105

0.1734

<.0001

−10.362

0.1313

<.0001

 2

−4.420

0.0838

<.0001

−3.805

0.1218

<.0001

−4.745

0.1161

<.0001

 1

−1.587

0.0602

<.0001

−1.259

0.0809

<.0001

−1.893

0.0884

<.0001

 0

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

Ref.

-

-

a Co-morbidity included chronic and acute diseases, accident or addiction opportunity, hypertension diagnosis, diabetes mellitus diagnosis, cerebral infarction diagnosis, cardiac infarction, angina pectoris diagnosis, arthritis diagnosis, osteoporosis diagnosis, tuberculosis diagnosis or asthma diagnosis

b Social activity included religion, relation, leisure or charity

(adjusted by the number of cultural facility, welfare facility, physical facility, GRDP, Hospital in the region)

Figure 1 shows the association between amount of social activity participation and quality of life by gender and age-group. In both male and female groups, when individuals participated in one social activity, social activity was more strongly associated with EQ-5D in elderly individuals (males: 19–34 years = 0.195, 35–49 years = 0.642, 50–64 years = 1.716, ≥65 years = 4.408; females: 19–34 years = 0.170, 35–49 years = 0.502, 50–64 years = 1.411, ≥65 years = 4.180). Of note, females had a more rapid increase in EQ-5D going from the younger age groups to the over 65 age group; in contrast, the male group had more of a gradual increase between age groups.
Fig. 1

EQ-5D by social activity count by age group. a Male. b Female. Adjusted by education, perceived health status, stress awareness, marital status, family income, economic activity, depression diagnosis, co-morbidity, cultural facility, welfare facility, physical facility, GRDP, Hospital

Figure 2 shows the association between each type of social activity and quality of life according to gender and age group. In males, those aged 65 or older who participated in relationship organizations had the highest EQ-5D, followed by leisure activities, and religious activities (Relationship = 4.023, Leisure = 3.084, Religion = 0.812). The other age and gender groups had similar results. Specifically, we found that females who participated in relationship organizations had a much higher EQ-5D scores than those who participated in other social activities (Females ≥65 age groups; Relationship = 4.373, Leisure = 2.620, Religion = 1.842, Charity = 1.544).
Fig. 2

EQ-5D by social activity type by age group. a Male. b Female. Adjusted by education, perceived health status, stress awareness, marital status, family income, economic activity, depression diagnosis, co-morbidity, cultural facility, welfare facility, physical facility, GRDP, Hospital

Discussion

The aim of this study was to assess whether participation in social activities was associated with health-related quality of life according to gender and age group [13, 14]. Our main findings indicated that participation in social activities was positively associated with health-related quality of life in all groups regardless of age or gender. Subsequently, we focused on the amount of participation and the types of social activities (religion, relationship, leisure, charity) most associated with high health-related quality of life.

Those who participated in social activities had higher health-related quality of life than those who did not, as supported by previous studies [10]. We also found that people who participated in more social activities had higher health-related quality of life than those who participated in less or none at all.

Our results suggested that the biggest differences were seen in the elderly between those who participated in social activities and those who did not, irrespective of gender. This finding supports previous studies, which indicated that for the elderly, participation in social activities was more important for increasing the quality of life than in the younger population [15] and this trend was more pronounced in elderly females. In the male group, the difference in EQ-5D between those who participated in social activities versus those who did not increased gradually by age group. On the other hand, females under 65 years of age had small differences in EQ-5D between those who participated in social activities and those who did not by age group, but after 65 years of age, there was a sharp increase in EQ-5D between those who participated and those who did not. In addition, females ≥65 years of age had a larger EQ-5D increase than males and this difference between genders was maintained when considering the number of social activities participants were involved in. Therefore, we conclude that for females, participation in social activities was more specifically associated with higher quality of life [15].

When we focused on the type of social activities, the social activity most associated with quality of life was relationship and the second was leisure activity [16]. This finding supports a previous study that indicated that the most effective social activity for increasing health-related quality of life is relationship-based [17]. The third most effective social activity was religious activity. In contrast to the present study, results from other studies did not show a statistical association [18, 19]. Furthermore, in the 35 to 49 age group, females reported a negative effect on health-related quality of life. One explanation for the lack of consistency among studies is the difference in the level of religious depth. Further, there is religious diversity in Korea, but the survey did not include the different kinds of religions/practices.

A previous study found no statistically significant association among all gender and age groups with respect to participation in charity activities [20]. In contrast, we noted a positive correlation between females in the ≥65 year age group who participated in charity activities versus those who did not. We speculate that the difference in these findings is due to the fact that the definition of charity activity was not obvious and the number of participants was too small in the Korean population.

When we stratified the population by gender and age group, there were differences in the effective type of social activities between each cluster. For men in the 19 to 34 and the 50 to 64 age groups, relationship was the most effective and leisure was the second most effective social activity for health-related quality of life. For men in the 35 to 49 age group, only relationship was effective. For men in the ≥ 65 age group, all social activities except charity were effective for improving quality of life. For women in the 19 to 49 age group, relationship was the only effective social activity. For women in the 50 to 64 age group, relationship and leisure were both positively associated with quality of life. In the ≥65 age group, all kinds of social activity had a positive effect on QOL. Therefore, we recognize that the elderly population derives more benefit from all forms of social activity compared to younger individuals [15]; for women, a greater variety in social activities was most effective.

To our knowledge, there are few studies that have recognized the association between social activities and health-related quality of life in the general population (especially among different types of social activities) [21], although several studies demonstrated an association between social activities and life satisfaction [22]. Our study demonstrated that participating in social activities is associated with better quality of life, which included participants’ health status [23]. Furthermore, we investigated whether participation in more social activities increased the health-related quality of life. Specifically, we demonstrated the association between the type of social activity and health-related quality of life according to gender and age group.

Our study had some limitations. First, we performed a cross-sectional study; therefore, we could not determine any mutual effect between social activity and health-related quality of life. Second, the survey did not distinguish among religious practices, so we could not determine differences in effectiveness, if any, between religious practices. Third, the survey did not investigate the depth of religious activity, so that the results of this study could not be linked with previous studies. Fourth, the survey did not define “charity activity”, so participants might not have classified their activities appropriately.

In conclusion, despite some limitations, our findings have novel implications. Currently, people desire not only economic wealth, but good health as well. In keeping with this trend, the government encourages participation in social activities. However, the emphasis has been mainly on the elderly population, and has focused on volunteer work, leisure, and cultural programs in senior centers. Interestingly, the most effective type of social activity was friendship-related, which was effective for all age groups, and especially for females [15]. Importantly, the government has not considered the under 65 age groups. Our study indicates that the Korean government should consider expanding policies that encourage participation by all age groups in social activities, especially those that are friendship-related. Finally, it is important that individuals participate in various social activities, especially those that include relationships, to enhance the quality of life.

Abbreviations

HRQOL: 

Health related quality of life

CHS: 

Community Health Survey

EQ-5D: 

EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire

EQ-VAS: 

EuroQol visual analogue scales

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research study was not funded by any foundation.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health, Graduate School, Yonsei University
(2)
Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine
(3)
Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University
(4)
Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine

References

  1. Larson JS. The World Health Organization’s definition of health: Social versus spiritual health. Soc Indic Res. 1996;38(2):181–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett KM. Social engagement as a longitudinal predictor of objective and subjective health. Eur J Ageing. 2005;2(1):48–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Neill CM, Kahn AS. The role of personal spirituality and religious social activity on the life satisfaction of older widowed women. Sex Roles. 1999;40(3–4):319–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Duvdevany I, Arar E. Leisure activities, friendships, and quality of life of persons with intellectual disability: foster homes vs community residential settings. Int J Rehabil Res. 2004;27(4):289–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Netuveli G, Wiggins RD, Hildon Z, Montgomery SM, Blane D. Quality of life at older ages: evidence from the English longitudinal study of aging (wave 1). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):357–63.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Neal JD, Sirgy MJ, Uysal M. The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life. J Bus Res. 1999;44(3):153–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Solans M, Pane S, Estrada MD, Serra-Sutton V, Berra S, Herdman M, et al. Health-related quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: a systematic review of generic and disease-specific instruments. Value Health. 2008;11(4):742–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00293.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Glass TA, De Leon CF, Bassuk SS, Berkman LF. Social engagement and depressive symptoms in late life: longitudinal findings. J Aging Health. 2006;18(4):604–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264306291017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Peteet JR. Cancer and the meaning of work. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2000;22(3):200–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Yanos PT, Rosenfield S, Horwitz AV. Negative and supportive social interactions and quality of life among persons diagnosed with severe mental illness. Community Ment Health J. 2001;37(5):405–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks R, Rabin R, De Charro F. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective: evidence from the EuroQol BIO MED research programme. The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media; 2003Google Scholar
  12. Nam H, Kim K, Kwon S, Koh K, Poul K. EQ-5D Korean valuation study using time trade of method. Seoul: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Riedinger MS, Dracup KA, Brecht M-L, Padilla G, Sarna L, Ganz PA. Quality of life in patients with heart failure: do gender differences exist? Heart Lung. 2001;30(2):105–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Demura S, Sato S. Relationships between depression, lifestyle and quality of life in the community dwelling elderly: a comparison between gender and age groups. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Hum Sci. 2003;22(3):159–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Avlund K, Damsgaard MT, Holstein BE. Social relations and mortality. An eleven year follow-up study of 70-year-old men and women in Denmark. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(5):635–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Helgeson VS. Social support and quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(1):25–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bowling A. What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(10):1447–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00113-L.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilmoth JD, Adams-Price CE, Turner JJ, Blaney AD, Downey L. Examining social connections as a link between religious participation and well-being among older adults. J Relig Spirituality Aging. 2014;26(2–3):259–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Keyes C, Reitzes D. The role of religious identity in the mental health of older working and retired adults. Aging Ment Health. 2007;11(4):434–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Borgonovi F. Doing well by doing good. The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(11):2321–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eyler AA, Brownson RC, Donatelle RJ, King AC, Brown D, Sallis JF. Physical activity social support and middle-and older-aged minority women: results from a US survey. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(6):781–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Dongen CJ. Quality of life and self-esteem in working and nonworking persons with mental illness. Community Ment Health J. 1996;32(6):535–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Seong SS, Choi CB, Sung YK, Park YW, Lee HS, Uhm WS, et al. Health-related quality of life using EQ-5D in Koreans. J Korean Rheumatism Assoc. 2004;11(3):254–62.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Park et al. 2015

Advertisement