The Associations between Meeting 24-Hour Movement Guidelines (24-HMG) and Self-Rated Physical and Mental Health in Older Adults—Cross Sectional Evidence from China

Abstract

Background: This study determined the prevalence of older adults (aged 60–80 years) meeting the Canadian 24-HMG alone and in combination, and their association with the self-rated physical health and mental health of older adults. Methods: Participants were drawn from 4134 older adults aged 60–80 years (age, 67.37 ± 0.08 years; 46.87% male) from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) 2015 database. Mental health and physical health scores were obtained based on self-rated mental health questionnaires and physical health of older adults. The criteria for meeting the 24-HMG were: physical activity time ≥ 150 min/week, sedentary time ≤ 480 min/day, screen time ≤ 180 min/day, sleep time 7–9 h (60–64 years) and sleep time 7–8 h (65 years and above). Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between meeting the 24-HMG guidelines number and category and older adults’ self-rated mental and physical health. Results: The proportion of older people meeting three of the 24-HMG guidelines was 1.16%, the proportion meeting two guidelines was 38.19% and the proportion meeting one guideline was 49.14%. The number of people meeting 24-HMG was closely related to the self-rated physical health and mental health of older people. The category meeting 24-HMG was closely related to the self-rated physical health and mental health of older people. Conclusions: Meeting more guidelines in the 24-HMG was strongly associated with older people’s self-rated mental health and physical health. However, only a small proportion of older people met all the recommendations, highlighting the need to promote and support adherence to these movement behaviours.

Association of 24-hour movement guideline adherence, mental health and quality of life in young adults: the role of e-Health literacy

“…The adherence to the PA guidelines might have been influenced by pandemic restrictions. Still, compared to previous research ( 17 , 45 , 46 ), the compliance in the current study was higher. The possible reason is that the participants are all college students living on campus, nearly half of whom (43.3%) where from health-related major.…”

“…Meanwhile, meeting different combinations of guidelines had different effects on students’ MH and QoL. Among the three combinations (PA + ST, PA + SP, ST + SP), meeting ST + SP guidelines showed the most significant positive effects on both MH and QoL, which is consistent with previous studies ( 45 , 46 ). Surprisingly, meeting PA + SP guideline was found to increase the symptoms of depression with a moderate effect size.…”

“…Additionally, meeting PA + ST had no significant impact on either MH or QoL. Several previous studies have highlighted the relative importance of meeting SP guideline (45,46,56), indicated that the SP guideline had a stronger connection to MH compared to the other guidelines. It is possible that the negative impact of not meeting SP guideline inhibits the positive effect of meeting PA + ST guideline.…”

The effect of exercise intensity types on the self-rated health status of young-old comorbidities patients: a cross-sectional study in Guangdong, China

“…Individuals who actively participate in sports activities are able to maintain or improve their physical abilities and better complete daily tasks in daily life ( 39 ), leading respondents to make better health self-rated health status. Meanwhile, vigorous-intensity exercise may have a positive effect on the endocrine system, such as promoting the release of neurotransmitters such as endorphins and dopamine, thereby improving emotional and psychological states ( 30 ). Exercise therapy is a treatment method often used to improve the physical and mental health of older people without any side effects ( 31 ).…”

“…Specifically, the response was measured using a 5-point Likert scale ( 29 ): 1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = average, 4 = poor, and 5 = very poor. According to previous research ( 30 , 31 ), we used a score of 3 as the cutoff point, and respondents who answered “1” or “2” were classified as good and assigned a value of 1; the respondents who answered “3” were still average and assigned a value of 2; respondents who answer “4” or “5” were classified as poor and assigned a value of 3.…”