OBJECTIVE: To examine how a healthy lifestyle is related to life expectancy that is free from major chronic diseases.DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Nurses' Health Study (1980-2014; n=73 196) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2014; n=38 366).MAIN EXPOSURES: Five low risk lifestyle factors: never smoking, body mass index 18.5-24.9, moderate to vigorous physical activity (≥30 minutes/day), moderate alcohol intake (women: 5-15 g/day; men 5-30 g/day), and a higher diet quality score (upper 40%).MAIN OUTCOME: Life expectancy free of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer.RESULTS: The life expectancy free of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer at age 50 was 23.7 years (95% confidence interval 22.6 to 24.7) for women who adopted no low risk lifestyle factors, in contrast to 34.4 years (33.1 to 35.5) for women who adopted four or five low risk factors. At age 50, the life expectancy free of any of these chronic diseases was 23.5 (22.3 to 24.7) years among men who adopted no low risk lifestyle factors and 31.1 (29.5 to 32.5) years in men who adopted four or five low risk lifestyle factors. For current male smokers who smoked heavily (≥15 cigarettes/day) or obese men and women (body mass index ≥30), their disease-free life expectancies accounted for the lowest proportion (≤75%) of total life expectancy at age 50.CONCLUSION: Adherence to a healthy lifestyle at mid-life is associated with a longer life expectancy free of major chronic diseases.
Study goal: This study was carried out to answer the following research question: which motivation do healthy volunteers have to participate in phase I clinical trials? - Methods: A literature search was done through Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier, followed by three interviews with volunteers who had recently concluded their participation in a (non-commercial) phase I trial. - Results: Our literature search revealed mainly commercial motives for volunteers to participate in phase I clinical trials. The interviews (with volunteers in a non-commercial trial) showed that other factors may also play a decisive role, such as: (1) wish to support the investigator (2) wish to contribute to science, (3) access to more/better health care (4) sociability: possibility to relax and to communicate with other participants (5) general curiosity. Precondition is that risks and burden are deemed acceptable. - Conclusions: financial remuneration appears to be the predominant motive to participate voluntarily in a clinical trial. Other reasons were also mentioned however, such as general curiosity, the drive to contribute to science and the willingness to help the investigator. In addition, social reasons were given such as possibility to relax and to meet other people. Potential subjects state that they adequately assess the (safety) risks of participating in a trial as part of their decision process.
Introduction. Despite the high number of inactive patients with COPD, not all inactive patients are referred to physical therapy, unlike recommendations of general practitioner (GP) guidelines. It is likely that GPs take other factors into account, determining a subpopulation that is treated by a physical therapist (PT). The aim of this study is to explore the phenotypic differences between inactive patients treated in GP practice and inactive patients treated in GP practice combined with PT. Additionally this study provides an overview of the phenotype of patients with COPD in PT practice. Methods. In a cross-sectional study, COPD patient characteristics were extracted from questionnaires. Differences regarding perceived health status, degree of airway obstruction, exacerbation frequency, and comorbidity were studied in a subgroup of 290 inactive patients and in all 438 patients. Results. Patients treated in GP practice combined with PT reported higher degree of airway obstruction,more exacerbations, more vascular comorbidity, and lower health status compared to patients who were not referred to and treated by a PT. Conclusion. Unequalpatient phenotypes in different primary care settings have important clinical implications. It can be carefully concluded that other factors, besides the level of inactivity, play a role in referral to PT.
