Dataset Information

A critical reanalysis of the relationship between genomics and well-being.

ABSTRACT: Fredrickson et al. [Fredrickson BL, et al. (2013) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(33):13684-13689] claimed to have observed significant differences in gene expression related to hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being. Having closely examined both their claims and their data, we draw substantially different conclusions. After identifying some important conceptual and methodological flaws in their argument, we report the results of a series of reanalyses of their dataset. We first applied a variety of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques to their self-reported well-being data. A number of plausible factor solutions emerged, but none of these corresponded to Fredrickson et al.'s claimed hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions. We next examined the regression analyses that purportedly yielded distinct differential profiles of gene expression associated with the two well-being dimensions. Using the best-fitting two-factor solution that we identified, we obtained effects almost twice as large as those found by Fredrickson et al. using their questionable hedonic and eudaimonic factors. Next, we conducted regression analyses for all possible two-factor solutions of the psychometric data; we found that 69.2% of these gave statistically significant results for both factors, whereas only 0.25% would be expected to do so if the regression process was really able to identify independent differential gene expression effects. Finally, we replaced Fredrickson et al.'s psychometric data with random numbers and continued to find very large numbers of apparently statistically significant effects. We conclude that Fredrickson et al.'s widely publicized claims about the effects of different dimensions of well-being on health-related gene expression are merely artifacts of dubious analyses and erroneous methodology.

SUBMITTER: Brown NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4156729 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCricket is a popular sport played by 2.5 billion people of all ages and abilities. However, cricket participation is decreasing in the UK, despite an increased focus of governments on increasing sport participation to enhance public health. Understanding the health benefits and mitigating the health risks of cricket participation may help cricket organisations promote cricket participation while optimising the long-term health of cricket participants. Currently, there is no literature review on the relationship between cricket participation, health and well-being; thus, this relationship remains unclear. Therefore, the aims of this scoping review were (1) to investigate the relationship between cricket participation, health and well-being and (ii) to identify the research gaps related to cricket, health and well-being.Methods and analysisDue to the broad nature of our research question and the large number of health outcomes assessed within the cricket literature and to facilitate identification of research gaps, a scoping review methodology was used. The methodology of this paper was informed by previous scoping review protocols and best practice methodological frameworks. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Web of Science and PEDro and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and ProQuest) will be systematically searched. Studies that assess a construct related to health and/or well-being in current and/or former cricketers from all ages and standards of play will be eligible. Two reviewers will independently screen full texts of identiﬁed studies for eligibility and will perform data extraction. Results will be presented in tabular and graphical forms and will be reported descriptively.Ethics and disseminationThis research is exempt from ethics approval due to the data being available through published and public available resources. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed sports and exercise medicine journal regardless of positive or negative findings. In addition, results will be disseminated through multiple platforms, including conference presentations and social media using multimedia resources (eg, infographics, animations, videos, podcasts and blogs), to engage stakeholder groups, including cricketers, cricket coaches, sporting bodies, sports medicine professionals and policy makers. There findings will inform clinical decision making, policy changes and future research agendas.

Project description:University represents a time of both great uncertainty and change as well as a time of opportunity and learning. University students represent a population both at a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health and diagnosis and a population with relatively greater access and communication of both mental health literacy resources and mental health support services. Despite this, we consistently see low intention of help-seeking for mental health services or health services, with a clear preference shown for personal contacts such as friends or parents. To understand help-seeking intentions and their relationship with well-being, the current study explored two core hypotheses, when assessing a broad range of help-seeking options, the likelihood of seeking support from a range of sources will cluster together to create help-seeking groupings that can be further explored (1) and that across these help-seeking factors, there would be difference in intention score across students who fall within "at-risk," "low," or "normal to high" well-being groupings (2). Through a series of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a subsample (N = 178) and final confirmatory factor analysis (N = 1597) identified five help-seeking factors: Intimate Partner (single item), Personal Relations (friends, parents, and other relatives), External Health Service (external mental health provider and health provider), University Health Service (university mental health and health provider), and Digital and Distal Professional (digital apps, websites or forums, telehealth, religious leaders, and phone or online emergency services). To address hypothesis 2, a multivariate analysis of covariance was run to assess help-seeking intentions across factors between students with "at-risk" (N = 453), "low" (N = 484), or "normal to high" (N = 563) well-being scores. Although significant differences were found between groups on almost all help-seeking factors (except External Health Service), the differences between groups were small. However, consistently those with "normal to high" well-being demonstrated higher intention to seek help compared to "low" and "at-risk" groups. Across all groups, Personal Relations demonstrated the highest average help-seeking intention score and, in addition to supporting findings in previous literature, represents a potential "lowest hanging fruit" of help-seeking source for university students.

Dataset Information

A critical reanalysis of the relationship between genomics and well-being.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets