ArticlePloS one2018
Do singles or couples live healthier lifestyles? Trends in Queensland between 2005-2014.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Marital status and prostate cancer incidence: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies from the PRACTICAL consortium.European journal of epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Spousal diabetes status as a risk factor for incident type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis.Acta diabetologica · 2019Pooled it
- Randomized Trial of a Physical Activity Intervention for Latino Men: Activo.American journal of preventive medicine · 2020Trial
- Prevalence and factors associated with regular fast-food consumption among adults in the UAE: a cross-sectional study.Public health nutrition · 2025Article
- Article
- Epidemiology of Hepatitis D Virus and Associated Factors in Patients Referred to Level Three Hepatitis Clinic, Fars Province, Southern Iran.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Association of marital status with DNA methylation-based biological age among US older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Demographic correlates of weight-loss strategies in US adults: Cross-sectional analysis of NHANES data 2017-2020.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Fracture Risk and Health Profiles Differ According to Relationship Status: Findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study.Calcified tissue international · 2024Article
- Health behaviors, obesity, and marital status among cancer survivors: a MEPS study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Article
- US Adults Practicing Healthy Lifestyles Before and During COVID-19: Comparative Analysis of National Surveys.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Differences in physical activity between weekdays and weekend days among U.S. children and adults: Cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2011-2014 data.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Acculturation and Associations with Ultra-processed Food Consumption among Asian Americans: NHANES, 2011-2018.The Journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Prevalence of multimorbidity and its correlates among older adults in Eastern Nepal.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Living Environment Considerations on Obesity Prevention Behaviors and Self-Efficacy among Chinese Americans.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation on hepatocellular carcinoma patients: A SEER-based study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Association between living alone and incident type 2 diabetes among middle-aged individuals in Korea: a nationwide cohort study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cohabitation and marriage during the transition between adolescence and emerging adulthood: A systematic review of changes in weight-related outcomes, diet and physical activity.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Review
- Is sleep duration associated with overweight/obesity in Indigenous Australian adults?BMC public health · 2020Article
- Factors Associated with Single-Use and Co-Use of Tobacco and Alcohol: A Multinomial Modeling Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the frequency of and trends in healthy lifestyle factors between singles and couples.
methodsCross-sectional data from annual surveys conducted from 2005-2014 were used. The pooled sample included 15,001 Australian adults (mean age: 52.9 years, 50% male, 74% couples) who participated in the annual Queensland Social Survey via computer-assisted telephone interviews. Relationship status was dichotomised into single and couple. Binary logistic regression was used to assess associations between relationship status, and the frequency of and trends in healthy lifestyle factors.
resultsCompared to singles, couples were significantly more likely to be a non-smoker (OR = 1.82), and meet recommendations for limited fast food (OR = 1.12), alcohol consumption (OR = 1.27) and fruit and vegetable intake (OR = 1.24). Fruit and vegetable intake was not significantly associated with relationship status after adjusting for the other healthy lifestyle factors. Conversely, couples were significantly less likely to be within a normal weight range (OR = 0.81). In both singles and couples, the trend data revealed significant declines in the rates of normal weight (singles: OR = 0.97, couples: OR = 0.97) and viewing TV for less than 14 hours per week (singles: OR = 0.85, couples: OR = 0.84), whilst non-smoking rates significantly increased (singles: OR = 1.12, couples: OR = 1.03). The BMI trend was no longer significant when adjusting for health behaviours. Further, in couples, rates of meeting recommendations for physical activity and fruit/vegetable consumption significantly decreased (OR = 0.97 and OR = 0.95, respectively), as did rates of eating no fast food (OR = 0.96). These trends were not significant when adjusting for the other healthy lifestyle factors. In singles, rates of meeting alcohol recommendations significantly increased (OR = 1.08).
conclusionsHealth behaviour interventions are needed in both singles and couples, but relationship status needs to be considered in interventions targeting alcohol, fast food, smoking and BMI. Further research is needed to understand why health behaviours differ by relationship status in order to further improve interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.