Cross-sectional study examines hobby engagement effects on subjective well-being in older stroke survivors, suggesting importance for health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Individuals with a history of stroke often face the risk of decreasing a wide range of social relationships and activities, including hobby engagement. Although hobby engagement has been reported to contribute to well-being across cultures, their effects on specific individuals with a history of stroke are not well known. This study examined the association between hobby engagement and subjective well-being in older stroke survivors. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was a secondary data analysis of community-dwelling older adults with a history of stroke who were receiving long-term care at home, using the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study-Home Care (JAGES-Home Care), a primary questionnaire survey linked with public long-term care certification data. METHODS: The participants were asked about their engagement in 13 hobby activities. In addition, their engagement numbers and types (cognitive, creative, physical, and receptive engagement) were measured. Subjective well-being was assessed with the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index. RESULTS: Data from 411 stroke survivors were analyzed (mean age = 82.2; 51.4% female). Of the participants, 82.4% engaged in any hobbies. A multivariable linear regression analysis adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, health-related, and care-related factors revealed that hobby engagement was associated with higher levels of subjective well-being (regression coefficients = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98; P < .001). Individuals who engaged in a greater number of hobbies exhibited higher well-being. All hobby types were associated with higher levels of well-being. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest a positive role of hobby engagement, including receptive activities, in the well-being of stroke survivors, highlighting the importance of promoting their engagement and removing its barriers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noguchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: