Next Article in Journal
Combining Numerical Simulation and Deep Learning for Landslide Displacement Prediction: An Attempt to Expand the Deep Learning Dataset
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of Relational Capital on the Sustainability Risk: Findings from Chinese Non-State-Owned Manufacturing Enterprises
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/su14116905
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Patterns of Quality of Life and Perceived Satisfaction in Adults and Elderly in Spain: Daily Practices, Life Experiences and Psychological Profiles

by
Cristina Díaz-Prieto
,
Jesús-Nicasio García-Sánchez
* and
Alejandro Canedo-García
Department of Psychology, Sociology and Philosophy, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6905; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116905
Submission received: 17 March 2022 / Revised: 6 May 2022 / Accepted: 26 May 2022 / Published: 6 June 2022
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A study was carried out with the purpose of determining the day-to-day practices, positive and stressful life experiences, and psychological profiles that underpin different perceptions of quality of life and perceived satisfaction. A total of 1095 adults and elderly people from Spain participated in the study. An online instrument designed using the tool Google Forms was administered to them. Descriptive and multivariate analysis was performed using the general linear model (GLM). Three types of finding were obtained. First, we identified everyday practices that promote perceived quality of life and perceived satisfaction. Second, we established the relationship between certain positive and stressful life experiences, their consequences, and different perceptions of quality of life and perceived satisfaction. Finally, we identified the distinguishing psychological profiles associated with these constructs. The results obtained here can contribute to the development of more successful psychological and social interventions. They reveal a set of indicators that, based on empirical evidence, should be part of any intervention design.

1. Introduction

The present study aims to answer the following research question: What kinds of daily practices, life experiences, and psychological profiles lie behind different perceptions of quality of life and perceived satisfaction? In answering this research question, we seek to determine the relationship between perceived quality of life, the perceived satisfaction of adults and the elderly, the daily practices that they undertake, their life experiences (both positive and stressful ones), and their psychological profiles.
Perceived quality of life and perceived satisfaction are two distinct but closely related constructs. One could say that perceived satisfaction is a domain that is part of quality of life. Despite how abstract these two concepts may appear a priori, in recent years, there have been numerous works that have defined and measured quality of life in objective terms, using numerous items for this—many of them used in this work [1,2]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines quality of life as an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns. We have defined the quality of life perceived by adults through the following specific variables: physical health, mood, memory, family, friends, intimate relationships, place of residence, ability to meet basic needs, ability to perform household tasks, ability to perform tasks outside the home, leisure and entertainment, money, occupation, perceived satisfaction, and life in general. We understand as perceived satisfaction the individual’s experience of a sense of the fulfillment of a need or want and the quality or state of being satisfied. This is a person’s sense of fulfillment or state of being satisfied. We understand as perceived satisfaction the individual’s experience of a sense of the fulfillment of a need or want and the quality or state of being satisfied. This is a person’s sense of fulfillment or state of being satisfied [3]. For example, van Dinter et al. [4] analyze satisfaction with life as a cognitive judgmental process determined by personal characteristics, among other variables (age, income, education, disabilities). Other studies address perceived satisfaction through personal well-being and self-esteem, as constructs that are related to and some constructs that mediate between life satisfaction and self-esteem, as well as self-promotion or self-deprecation [5]. The use of the construct of perceived satisfaction and life satisfaction from the workplace is very common, with many studies and diverse aspects. Likewise, the construct has been used as a measure of the personal happiness of people, as in the recent study by Krys et al. [6], in which perceived satisfaction is compared in fifty countries. These recent studies show the timeliness and relevance of the construct used in our study. Although there are data that point to the impact of certain everyday practices, experiences, and psychological traits on quality of life [7,8,9,10], the truth is that none of the studies reviewed focuses on analyzing the types of daily practices, life experiences, and psychological profiles that lie behind high perceived quality of life and perceived satisfaction.
Well-being is defined not only as the absence of disease, but as a combination of a person’s physical, mental, emotional, and social health—that is, how they feel about themselves on an individual level and about their life on a social level [11].
Different studies have identified what could be termed practices based on empirical evidence that contribute to optimizing quality of life. For example, physical exercise, mental stimulation, the frequent establishment of social connections, social affiliation, and even work may be associated with higher life quality and satisfaction [9,12,13,14,15,16]. There are also studies that show the effect in terms of benefits, satisfaction, and limitations of intergenerational relationships in both face-to-face and virtual activities [17,18]. In response to the current context, special mention should be made of the use of Web 2.0 tools [19]. Even though there has been abundant research with regard to predictors, patterns of use, and the benefits of these tools among different age groups [20,21], little is known about the distinguishing patterns of their use and benefits on the basis of the perception held of quality of life and perceived satisfaction.
Usually, when life experiences have been studied, the techniques of reminiscence and a life review or a review of significant life events have been adopted. While some studies refer to benefits derived from the memory of life experiences at a psychological, emotional, and social level, when it comes to life satisfaction, well-being, and quality of life [22,23,24,25,26], others question such benefits [27]. The majority of research has focused on the analysis of so-called stressful life events, their consequences, and the mediating role of resilience and coping strategies in this relationship [10,28,29,30]. Through these studies, a number of experiences that may affect quality of life and well-being [30] have been identified, including physical and mental health, social, work, and economic problems. Despite this, there is a gap in the research regarding the patterns of positive and stressful life experiences that underpin high quality of life and perceived satisfaction.
Certain psychological and personality traits have traditionally been associated with quality of life [31,32,33,34,35]. Moreover, particular personal tools that may contribute to regulating well-being have been identified, including emotional intelligence, social support, and certain coping styles [36,37]. Another group of studies has focused on analyzing the psychological consequences that stem from particular difficulties, mainly in relation to physical and mental health, and that inevitably have an impact on quality of life, perceived satisfaction, well-being, and mental health [38,39]. That said, few studies have concentrated on an analysis of the psychological profiles that underpin high perceived quality of life, which could be very relevant for the purposes of outlining emotional and psychosocial variables that, owing to their protective role, contribute to enhancing quality of life and well-being [40]. The idea, then, is the provision of a positive viewpoint that encourages the undertaking of effective social and psychological interventions within the framework of the new approaches that extol individual strengths as the nucleus of such activities [41].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

We surveyed 1095 adults and elderly people in Spain, randomly belonging to the different Spanish Autonomous Communities (Spanish Regions), who were recruited during 2019–2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic, through different centers, associations, organizations, institutions, public and private universities, and university programs for older people. Of these, 439 were men and 656 women, distributed by age group as follows: (i) under 55 years (n = 498; age = 33.5); (ii) 55–60 years (n = 138; age = 58); (iii) 61–65 years (n = 177; age = 63); (iv) 66–70 years (n = 163; age = 68); (vi) over 70 years (n = 119; age = 75.5). All participants were adults who had basic knowledge of working with ICT and sufficient autonomy to respond to the instruments administered.

2.2. Instrument

The Practices in Adults and the Elderly (PRAEL) instrument (see Table 1) was used, and it consists of 6 scales. It was designed based on a review and adaptation of numerous questionnaires used in various national and international studies, including the Scale of Social Support Networks for Older Adults [42], the Expectations of Self-Efficacy to Perform Activities of Daily Living in Older Adults Instrument [43], the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease instrument (QOL-AD [44]), and the Internet and Elderly People instrument [3], among many others. Google Forms was used to design and administer the survey. The instrument as a whole displayed adequate psychometric properties, with satisfactory content, theoretical, and construct validity, as well as reliability in the form of a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.720. The composite reliability, or McDonald’s omega, unlike Cronbach’s alpha, which considers the elements of the scale, considers the weights (lambdas) of the latent variables or factors; its values were 0.70 and above, so the reliability of the instrument was confirmed. In addition, the average variances extracted (convergent validity) were adequate (around 0.50 and higher); their square roots represent the discriminant validity of the instrument, whose values are greater than the intercorrelations between the latent variables, which confirms the construct validity. These values and others on sampling adequacy and other coefficients can be seen in Table 1.
Having designed the PRAEL instrument, we conducted a pilot study. Forty-five of its participants were enrolled in a university program at the University of León (Spain) for elderly people, and fifty-eight were enrolled in a course on technological tools organized by the local authorities. The aim was to determine the estimated time required to complete the instrument, as well as to detect possible problems related to the interpretation of the items or any other issue that might arise during completion of the questionnaire. After finding no problem, we made contact with the potential sample in person or via telephone, fax, or the Internet in order to inform them about the objectives of the study and to request their participation. The participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study. The maximum amount of time required to complete the instrument was 30–35 minutes, though there were differences based on participants’ level of digital competence. For Perceived Quality of Life (PQL), values from 1 to 4 were given according to the results proposed for the different variables by the participants: bad = 1, okay = 2, good = 3, and excellent = 4. For Current Practices (PRA), we used values from 1 to 5 according the result proposed for the different variables: never = 1, rarely = 2, ever = 3, often = 4, always = 5. For psychological pattern (emotions, motivations, social competence, self-efficacy), values from 1 to 5 indicated agreement with statements (strongly disagree = 1 up to total agreement = 5)
Once the questionnaires had been completed, the results were extracted and coded for the purpose of conducting descriptive analysis (frequencies and percentages, means, and standard deviations). Multivariate analysis was performed based on the general linear model (GLM).

2.3. Data Analysis

First, descriptive analyses were carried out to check the normality of the variables (skewness and kurtosis) and to be able to carry out parametric analyses, as well as the elimination of outliers, with the statistical package SPSS version 26.
Second, exploratory factor analyses were performed with half the sample (EFA), confirming the factors indicated in Table 1, as well as the adjustment of the structure of the scales used. Exploratory factor analysis was performed using the maximum likelihood method, with the direct oblimin rotation and Bartlett factorial scores, performed with the statistical package SPSS version 26. From the lambdas obtained in each latent variable of the pattern matrices of the exploratory factorial analysis, the composite reliabilities or McDonald omegas were calculated in Excel (expected to be greater than 0.70), as well as the extracted mean variances (convergent validity, around or greater than 0.50) and discriminant validity (square root of the extracted mean variances, which must be greater than the values of the intercorrelations between the latent variables). Both types of validity, convergent and discriminant validity, have been described as good measures of construct validity.
For the calculation of the internal consistency of the scales, the scales module was used, obtaining the Cronbach’s alphas, the intercorrelations between the items, the intercorrelations between the items and the total scale, and the intercorrelations if the item was eliminated.
In addition, the general linear model modules were used for multivariate analyses, considering quality of life as a grouping variable and, more specifically, perceived satisfaction as a specific variable that nuances and contributes to quality of life, which allowed differential patterns to be obtained between the different dependent variables included in the models (the rest of the variables). On the one hand, multivariate variance contrasts were extracted; in the case of being significant, the inter-subject effects and, finally, the post-hoc contrasts were examined. These analyses were performed with SPSS version 26. These multivariate contrasts not only provide statistical significance, but also practical significance (effect sizes with squared etas).

3. Results

The (GLM) multivariate contrasts indicated statistically significant results, taking as grouping variables quality of life (λWilks = 0.060; F (579, 2676) = 7.212; p ≤ 0.001; η2 = 0.609) and perceived satisfaction (λWilks= 0.099; F (579, 2676) = 5.371; p ≤ 0.001; η2 = 0.537). The tests for inter-subject effects for the variables related to everyday practices, life experiences, and psychological profiles provided statistically significant results, with effect sizes that were, in general, average, as will be shown in the following paragraphs.

3.1. Everyday Practices According to Perceived Quality of Life and Perceived Satisfaction

3.1.1. According to Perceived Quality of Life

There is a general trend that supports the existence of practices based on empirical evidence that promote the quality of life (Table 2). In general, the higher the frequency of these practices, the greater the perceived quality of life. That said, there seem to be certain practices that have a greater impact on a positive perception of quality of life. Among these, worth highlighting are those relating to the psychological domain (e.g., control of negative emotions, Mbad = 2.86 versus Mexcellent = 4.34, p = 0.01); to self-care (e.g., health self-care, Mbad = 3.71 versus Mexcellent = 4.67, p = 0.01); to self-determination (e.g., taking day-to-day decisions, Mbad = 4.14 versus Mexcellent = 4.87, p = 0.01); to the social sphere (e.g., family contacts, Mbad = 2.71 versus Mexcellent = 4.57, p = 0.01); and to leisure and recreation (e.g., recreational activities, Mbad = 2.14 versus Mexcellent = 3.56, p = 0.01).
Special mention within these daily practices should be made of the use of Web 2.0 tools and the perceived benefits thereof. That said, statistically significant results were only found in relation to the perceived benefits derived from the use of these tools, defining patterns that associate higher perceived quality of life with greater perceived benefits (e.g., benefits—general life, Mbad = 1.57 versus Mexcellent = 3.6, p = 0.01). Therefore, there do not appear to be any differences in the use of Web 2.0 tools according to perceived quality of life.

3.1.2. According to Perceived Satisfaction

We observed a trend similar to that described in relation to quality of life—that is, the higher the frequency of everyday practices that promote quality of life, the greater the perceived satisfaction (Table 3). There are practices that are associated with greater perceived satisfaction. Included among these are some of a psychological type (e.g., control of negative emotions, Mbad = 2.75 versus Mexcellent = 4.38, p = 0.01); a self-care type (e.g., health self-care, Mbad = 3.5 versus Mexcellent = 4.64, p = 0.01); a self-determination type (e.g., important decisions, Mbad = 3.5 versus Mexcellent = 4.83, p = 0.01); a social type (e.g., family contacts, Mbad = 3.17 versus Mexcellent = 4.58, p = 0.01), and a leisure and recreation type (e.g., tourist activities, Mbad = 1.83 versus Mexcellent = 2.95, p = 0.01).
Greater use of social networks is associated with lower perceived satisfaction. That said. the group that rated their perceived satisfaction as excellent was the one that perceived the greatest benefits in the use of different Web 2.0 tools (e.g., benefits—general life. Mbad = 2.17 versus Mexcellent = 3.59. p = 0.01).

3.2. Life Experiences According to Perceived Quality of Life and Perceived Satisfaction

3.2.1. According to Perceived Quality of Life

Perceived quality of life seems to be particularly associated with stressful life experiences (Table 4). Individuals with a lower perceived quality of life indicated that they had experienced a greater number of negative emotions arising from stressful experiences. Moreover. it seems that the effects in the short and medium term and the current impact of these life experiences is higher in people with lower quality of life. affecting all areas of the person’s life. from physical and mental health to interpersonal relationships and even to work (e.g., isolation effects. Mbad = 2.14 versus Mexcellent = 0.2. p = 0.01). This may relate to a lower use of active coping strategies. with other kinds of strategies of an emotional type or those based on denial. resignation. and self-criticism being more common (e.g., coping-self-criticism. Mbad = 1.01 versus Mexcellent = 0.24. p = 0.01).

3.2.2. According to Perceived Satisfaction

The greatest perceived satisfaction is associated with a more positive current impact from positive life experiences (e.g., current impact—assessment. Mbad = 2.83 versus Mexcellent = 4.49. p = 0.01). especially in the areas of physical and mental health. social participation. and the work environment. These are combined with a reduced experience of the various negative emotions arising from stressful life experiences (e.g., emotions—helplessness. Mbad = 3.75 versus Mexcellent = 0.95. p = 0.01) as well as lesser effects in the short and medium term and a lesser current impact of these experiences (e.g., effects—isolation. Mbad = 2.92 versus Mexcellent = 0.2. p = 0.01). All of this may be due to the greater use of coping strategies of an adaptive type (e.g., coping—acceptance. Mbad = 1.25 versus Mexcellent = 3.18. p = 0.01). For more details. see Table 5.

3.3. Psychological Profiles According to Perceived Quality of Life and Perceived Satisfaction

3.3.1. According to Perceived Quality of Life

The most positive levels of perceived quality of life were associated with psychological profiles characterized by higher rates of emotional intelligence (e.g., total emotional intelligence. Mbad = 17.43 versus Mexcellent = 23.61. p = 0.01). of achievement motivation (e.g., total achievement motivation. Mbad = 10.51 versus Mexcellent = 12.01. p = 0.01). and of self-efficacy in active ageing (e.g., total self-efficacy. Mbad = 37.71 versus Mexcellent = 43.85. p = 0.01). as well as by higher scores in the different items that assessed the social dimension (e.g., total social dimension. Mbad = 28.86 versus Mexcellent = 42.37. p = 0.01) (Table 6).
In particular. and following the trend described above. with regard to emotional intelligence. distinguishing patterns were found in relation to the identification of individuals’ own emotions and external emotions. emotional expression. emotional control. and assertiveness. Adults and elderly people who perceived their quality of life in a more positive way obtained higher scores in intrinsic motivation (e.g., total intrinsic motivation. Mbad = 2.71 versus Mexcellent = 4.4. p = 0.01). In addition. they had a broader social network. better social skills. and fewer feelings of loneliness. and they perceived social. instrumental. and informational support. Although self-efficacy was high for the different variables analyzed. it was greater in the group of individuals who perceived their quality of life in a more positive way (e.g., self-efficacy social relations. Mbad = 3.01 versus Mexcellent = 4.88. p = 0.01).

3.3.2. According to Perceived Satisfaction

The psychological profiles of adults and elderly people with high perceived quality of life and high perceived satisfaction were identical (Table 7). As a result. they were characterized by high scores in emotional intelligence (e.g., total emotional intelligence. Mbad = 18.17 versus Mexcellent = 23.8. p = 0.01). achievement motivation (e.g., total motivation. Mbad = 9.92 versus Mexcellent = 12.12. p = 0.01). social dimension (e.g., total social dimension. Mbad = 27.42 versus Mexcellent = 42.34. p = 0.01). and self-efficacy in active ageing (e.g., total self-efficacy. Mbad = 39.01 versus Mexcellent = 43.69. p = 0.01).

4. Discussion

The established objective has been achieved. and we have been able to obtain a response to the question that guided this study. There are differences in the daily practices. life experiences. and psychological profiles of adults and elderly people according to perceived quality of life and perceived satisfaction.
The results obtained support the existence of various practices that. based on empirical evidence. may contribute to promoting quality of life and perceived satisfaction. Therefore. high perceived quality of life and high perceived satisfaction are associated with a higher frequency of carrying out such practices. One of the main contributions of this study is the identification of the practices that have the most positive influence on both constructs. Five main categories can be highlighted: (i) psychological practices (e.g., control of negative emotions—understanding this not as the repression of emotions. but as the psychological ability to manage them. with emotional self-management and the ability to remain calm in complicated situations); (ii) self-care practices (e.g., self-care health practices—going to the doctor as a preventive measure. controlling stress levels and sugar intake. healthy eating. maintaining personal hygiene); (iii) self-determination practices (e.g., decision-making. planning for the future); (iv) social practices (e.g., contact with family and friends. social support). and (v) leisure and recreation practices (e.g., recreational activities. tourist activities). That said. we must not forget the impact on these two constructs of other practices. such as those related to learning. civic participation. and volunteering. Therefore. this study identifies the practices to be taken into account when promoting the different dimensions of quality of life included in a large proportion of the existing theoretical approaches to this construct [43]. Within these practices. a special place is reserved for discussion of the use of Web 2.0 tools and the perceived benefits. With regard to use. we only detected a trend that suggests that the increased use of social networks is associated with lower levels of perceived satisfaction. In line with previous investigations. this may be due to the use of social networks as a means of coping. refuge. or escape. with the objective of promoting mental disconnection. a search for information. and support [44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. That said. in relation to benefits. it can be observed that the adults and people who described both their quality of life and perceived satisfaction as excellent also perceived greater benefits derived from the use of Web 2.0 tools. depending on the type of tool [22,23]. in terms mainly of the benefits on physical health and mental health of an emotional and social kind. Other studies have already described benefits of cognitive. social. affective–emotional. physical. self-regulatory and behavioral management. and self-efficacy kind. and in general. they have demonstrated the potential of these tools to promote physical and mental health. quality of life. well-being. and life satisfaction [4,5,6]. However. until now. there had been no study of the inverse relationship—that is. patterns of use and perceived benefits—that underpins a particular perception of quality of life and perceived satisfaction [48,49,50]. This is what our study provides.
With regard to life experiences. stressful life experiences seem to be the ones that have the greatest impact. in terms of both quality of life and perceived satisfaction. Accordingly. adults and elderly people with lower quality of life and perceived satisfaction experience a greater number of negative emotions arising from such experiences. coupled with a greater impact in the short and medium term and a greater current impact [36]. All of this may be due to the increased use of maladaptive strategies such as denial. resignation. and self-criticism. at the expense of active coping strategies. In contrast. people with high quality of life and perceived satisfaction may exhibit a more positive impact from life experiences. as well as lesser emotional consequences and effects on other dimensions of their lives (physical and mental health; autonomy; and social. economic. and work factors. among others). These results support previous studies. For example. Hentschel et al. (2017) [51] found that certain life events. such as deteriorating finances or serious injury/illness. have a greater impact on emotional well-being. However. although distinguishing patterns exist. these are not clear. This may confirm the hypothesis of adaptation analyzed in previous studies. according to which human beings apparently have the ability to cope with life events. both positive and stressful. by always returning to a state of life satisfaction. as demonstrated by Misheva (2016) in monozygotic twins [29].
Hentschel et al. (2017) [51] have pointed out how certain personality traits such as emotional stability and extraversion have a greater impact on emotional well-being. These findings combine with those obtained in this study with respect to the distinguishing psychological profiles resulting from the various perceptions of quality of life and perceived satisfaction. It should be noted that. in general. adults and elderly people with higher levels of perceived quality of life and perceived satisfaction presented higher scores in all the psychological indicators evaluated. namely emotional intelligence. achievement motivation. self-efficacy in active ageing. and the social dimension. With regard to emotional intelligence. people with high quality of life and perceived satisfaction are more skilled in identifying and acknowledging their own emotions and those of others. in expression and emotional control. and in assertiveness. In terms of the social dimension. their social support networks are larger. and they display better social skills and a greater perception of emotional. instrumental. and informational support. Probably for this reason. a lesser feeling of loneliness and a more positive subjective evaluation of their social support network were detected. With regard to self-efficacy in active ageing. higher scores were found in self-efficacy in personal care. physical exercise. mental activity. household chores. activities outside the home. leisure activities. learning activities. activities focused on the establishment of social relations. and the management of personal finances. Finally. higher scores were detected in achievement motivation and. in particular. in intrinsic motivation. As a result. there may be certain psychological tools that exercise a protective role. contributing to an enhancement in quality of life and satisfaction with oneself. and this. therefore. should be taken into consideration in any intervention aimed at the improvement of these constructs [52].
More recently. and consistent with our results. the work of Burr et al. (2021) [53]. in adults. focused on how emotional experience is related to a more successful regulation of desire in everyday life and also provides evidence that emotional health and its regulation improve with age.
In spite of the contributions described above. this study presents a number of methodological limitations relating to the sample. and these must be taken into consideration. First. we should point out the issues stemming from the tool used to implement the instrument. Google Forms. Problems related to privacy. the inability to set a password and save the answers without the need to finish the questionnaire. and certain technical problems that led to the deletion of some answers were the main constraints encountered in this regard. That said. in general. the researchers were able to solve most of these problems during the design and implementation phases of the instrument. Necessary adjustments were made. and these difficulties did not to a large extent affect the results obtained. Thinking about the future. these methodological limitations could be overcome by implementing the instrument through other tools. such as SurveyMonkey. In relation to the sample. and probably due to the voluntary nature of participation in the study. factors such as the motivation of participants to respond to the instrument. which in turn could be influenced by the socio-economic level of the participants. had their impact on the sample obtained. In addition. the need for technological resources and basic digital competence also affected the final sample obtained. This leads us to consider the possibility that the results obtained here may vary in populations with different demographic. educational. and economic characteristics. meaning that there are difficulties in drawing generalizations from them.
It is evident that there are other means of approaching the constructs studied—for example. day reconstruction studies as practices that generate pleasure or purpose. or a review of the existing literature on everyday practices and life satisfaction. We refer in particular to the seminal experience sampling and day reconstruction studies [54] or the work on experiences that engender feelings of pleasure or purpose [55]. Using the survey method. of the self-report type. has known limitations. apart from the advantages of its use. such as comfort and economy in the provision of data. which justify its use. However. it is clear that other methods. such as descriptions of life experiences. qualitative explanations by the participants. direct observation. and narrative analysis. would provide other nuances that should be explored in the future. Therefore. the experiences provided by other studies are relevant and should be taken into account in other studies with focal samples. which address the constructs studied in a multi-method way. The aspect of studying a large sample is one of the limitations of the observational and qualitative methodologies; hence. the advantages of the interview methods should be added to the observational and qualitative ones. such as the narrative ones. which are also an object of study for this group but which exceeded the scope of this work. For example. in this study. narrative responses were incorporated for each of the favorable and unfavorable life experiences. in terms of quality of life and in terms of daily practices. However. analyzing all this material should be the subject of other studies as it requires the construction of systems of exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories and analyses with an observational methodology. as well as analyses of another type and complexity. We hope to provide results in the future. Another possible limitation has to do with the type of data analysis performed [56]. It is evident that it is not possible to carry out all the possible analyses. since the interview and self-report instruments offer possibilities but also limitations that must be improved with other samples. other instruments (narrative. observational). and with other variables and constructs—for example. mediational and conditional causal analyses. analysis of measurement models (CFA) and structure (SEM). which should be explored and improved in new studies. Moreover. probit and OLS analysis could be another path to include in the future agenda [56].
One aspect of this work to take into account is the fact that it was carried out in 2019–2020. the period before the COVID-19 pandemic. so it would be of great interest to carry out the study again using the same sample and after having suffered the consequences of the pandemic. with what it has meant on a psychosocial level. Thus. the evaluation of the daily practices. life experiences. and psychological profiles behind the different perceptions of quality of life and perceived satisfaction could take on a new dimension within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic. because these situations have impacted the quality of life experienced and the daily practices carried out.
In conclusion. this study identifies different types of daily practices. life experiences. and psychological profiles that lie behind different perceptions of perceived quality of life and perceived satisfaction in adults and the elderly in Spain. establishing with these the relationship between certain positive and stressful life experiences. and their consequences. The results obtained here could contribute to the development of future successful psychological and social interventions in a more targeted way. This paper reveals a set of indicators that. based on empirical evidence. should be part of any intervention design oriented toward promoting quality of life. perceived satisfaction. and well-being in adults and the elderly.
One contribution of the work is to aid in understanding some aspects of perceived satisfaction. Although the perception of quality of life is more studied. the role of the variable (or construct) of satisfaction can help to better understand some facets of quality of life. It is evident that the satisfaction perceived by people affects multiple variables in relation to life experiences. daily practices. and positive and negative experiences. and this depends on the type of psychological pattern observed (motivational. social competence. belief in ability. coping with problems). For this reason. identifying differential patterns. as carried out by the multivariate analysis provided. seems reasonable to consider as added value. and it can help in understanding the types of actions that must be undertaken by those who intend to improve the lives of people throughout their life cycles. especially during ageing. as one’s vital needs change and become more complex [3,4,5,6,53].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization. C.D.-P.. J.-N.G.-S. and A.C.-G.; methodology. J.-N.G.-S.; software. J.-N.G.-S.; validation. J.-N.G.-S.. C.D.-P.. and A.C.-G.; formal analysis. C.D.-P.. J.-N.G.-S. and A.C.-G.; investigation. C.D.-P.. J.-N.G.-S. and A.C.-G.; resources. C.D.-P.; data curation. C.D.-P. and J.-N.G.-S.; writing—original draft preparation. C.D.-P. and J.-N.G.-S.; writing—review and editing. C.D.-P.. J.-N.G.-S.. and A.C.-G.; visualization. C.D.-P.. JN and A.C.-G.; supervision. JN; project administration. J.-N.G.-S.; funding acquisition. C.D.-P. and J.-N.G.-S.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded through a PhD Fellowship (FPU-MECD REF. 12/04517) (to C. Díaz-Prieto) and BIOGES Starters. S. A. and Universidad de León (general research aid).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. and it was reviewed. approved. and carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the scientific and research Ethical Committee of Universidad de León. with written informed consent from participants through the app used. before all subjects were enrolled in our study.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the subjects through the online application.

Data Availability Statement

The data of this research will be provided by the authors. if requested.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Universidad de León and many other institutions for collaborating in facilitating with the participations of many people in completing the questionnaire.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Robeyns, I. Wellbeing Freedom and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-Examined; Open Book Publishers: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zheng, X.; Xue, Y.; Dong, F.; Shi, L.; Xiao, S.; Zhang, J.; Xue, B.; Qian, Y.; Zhu, H.; Man, Q.; et al. The association between health-promoting-lifestyles. and socioeconomic. family relationships. social support. health-related quality of life among older adults in china: A cross sectional study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2022, 20, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Díaz-Prieto, C.; García-Sánchez, J.N.; Canedo-García, A. Impact of Life Experiences and Use of Web 2.0 Tools in Adults and Older Adults. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Van Dinter, M.; Kools, M.; Dane, G.; Weijs-Perrée, M.; Chamilothori, K.; van Leeuwen, E.; Borgers, A.; van den Berg, P. Urban Green Parks for Long-Term Subjective Well-Being: Empirical Relationships between Personal Characteristics. Park Characteristics. Park Use. Sense of Place. and Satisfaction with Life in The Netherlands. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Szcześniak, M.; Mazur, P.; Rodzeń, W.; Szpunar, K. Influence of Life Satisfaction on Self-Esteem Among Young Adults: The Mediating Role of Self-Presentation. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 1473–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Krys, K.; Park, J.; Kocimska-Zych, A.; Kosiarczyk, A.; Selim, H.A.; Wojtczuk-Turek, A.; Haas, B.W.; Uchida, Y.; Torres, C.; Capaldi, C.A.; et al. Personal Life Satisfaction as a Measure of Societal Happiness is an Individualistic Presumption: Evidence from Fifty Countries. J. Happiness Stud. 2021, 22, 2197–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dardas, L.A.; Ahmad, M.M. Coping Strategies as Mediators and Moderators between Stress and Quality of Life among Parents of Children with Autistic Disorder. Stress Health 2015, 31, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Thomsen, D.K.; Steiner, K.L.; Pillemer, D.B. Life story chapters: Past and future. you and me. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2016, 5, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Marcus-Varwijk, A.E.; Koopmans, M.; Visscher, T.L.S.; Seidell, J.C.; Slaets, J.P.J.; Smits, C.H.M. Optimizing tailored health promotion for older adults: Understanding their perspectives on healthy living. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2016, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Merluzzi, T.V.; Chirico, A.; Serpentini, S.; Yang, M.; Philip, E.J. The role of coping in the relationship between stressful life events and quality of life in persons with cancer. Psychol. Health 2019, 34, 497–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Teghe, D.; Rendell, K. Social Wellbeing: A Literature Review; School of Social Work & Welfare Studies.; CQU: Rockhampton, Australia, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barreto, R.M.; Mangini, S.C.; Molina, S.A.; Popim, R.C. Interactions between quality of life at work and family: Integrative review. Int. Arch. Med. 2017, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Foster, L.; Walker, A. Active and successful aging: A European policy perspective. Gerontologist 2015, 55, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hommerich, C.; Tiefenbach, T.J. Analyzing the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being: The mediating role of social affiliation. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 19, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hongthong, D.; Somrongthong, R.; Ward, P. Factors Influencing the Quality of Life (Qol) Among Thai Older People in a Rural Area of Thailand. Iran. J. Public Health 2015, 44, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Kim, H.; Woo, E.; Uysal, M. Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Canedo-García, A.; García-Sánchez, J.N.; Díaz-Prieto, C.; Pacheco-Sanz, D.I. Evaluation of the Benefits. Satisfaction. and Limitations of Intergenerational Face-to-Face Activities: A General Population Survey in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Canedo-García, A.; García-Sánchez, J.N.; Pacheco-Sanz, D.I. Benefits, Satisfaction and Limitations Derived from the Performance of Intergenerational Virtual Activities: Data from a General Population Spanish Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Díaz-Prieto, C.; García-Sánchez, J.N. Psychological profiles of older adult Web 2.0 tool users. Comput. Human Behav. 2016, 64, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Marston, H.R.; Kroll, M.; Fink, D.; de Rosario, H.; Gschwind, Y.J. Technology use adoption and behavior in older adults: Results from the iStoppFalls Project. Educ. Gerontol. 2016, 42, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. El Haj, M.; Antoine, P. Describe yourself to improve your autobiographical memory: A study in Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex 2017, 88, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hyams, A.; Scogin, F. Reminiscence/Life review therapy. In The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Latorre, J.M.; Serrano, J.P.; Ricarte, J.; Bonete, B.; Ros, L.; Sitges, E. Life review based on remembering specific positive events in active aging. J. Aging Health 2015, 27, 140–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lopes, T.S.; Lopes, R.M.; Ribeiro, O.M. A quasi-experimental study of a reminiscence program focused on autobiographical memory in institutionalized older adults with cognitive impairment. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2016, 66, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wren, R. Effect of life review on quality of life for older adults living in nursing homes. Phys. Occup. Ther. Geriatr. 2017, 34, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hofer, J.; Busch, H.; Poláčková-Šolcová, I.; Tavel, P. When reminiscence is harmful: The relationship between self-negative reminiscence functions. need satisfaction. and depressive symptoms among elderly people from Cameroon the Czech Republic and Germany. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 85, 389–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kazukauskiene, N.; Burkauskas, J.; Macijauskiene, J.; Mickuviene, N.; Brozaitiene, J. Stressful Life Events Are Associated with Health-Related Quality of Life During Cardiac Rehabilitation and at 2-yr Follow-up in Patients with Heart Failure. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev 2019, 39, E5–E8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Lasgaard, M.; Armour, C.; Holm, R.; Goossens, L. Major life events as predictors of loneliness in adolescence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2016, 25, 631–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Misheva, V. What Determines Emotional Well-Being? The Role of Adverse Experiences: Evidence Using Twin Data. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 1921–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Grinde, B. Why negative feelings are important when assessing well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 1741–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. He, J.A.; Antshel, K.M.; Biederman, J.; Faraone, S.V. Do Personality Traits Predict Functional Impairment and Quality of Life in Adult ADHD? A Controlled Study. J. Atten. Disord 2019, 23, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Husson, O.; Zebrack, B.J.; Block, R.; Embry, L.; Aguilar, C.; Hayes-Lattin, B.; Cole, S. Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent and Young Adult Patients with Cancer: A Longitudinal Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 652–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Heidemeier, H.; Göritz, A.S. The Instrumental Role of Personality Traits: Using Mixture Structural Equation Modeling to Investigate Individual Differences in the Relationships Between the Big Five Traits and Life Satisfaction. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 2595–2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marino, C.; Vieno, V.; Lenzi, M.; Fernie, B.A.; Nikčević, A.V.; Spada, M.M. Personality Traits and Metacognitions as Predictors of Positive Mental Health in College Students. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Krabbenborg, M.A.M.; Boersma, S.N.; van der Veld, W.M.; Vollebergh, W.A.M.; Wolf, J.R.L.M. Self-determination in relation to quality of life in homeless young adults: Direct and indirect effects through psychological distress and social support. J. Posit. Psychol. 2016, 12, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Zeidner, M.; Matthews, G.; Shemesh, D.O. Cognitive-Social Sources of Wellbeing: Differentiating the Roles of Coping Style. Social Support and Emotional Intelligence. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 2481–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Adeyeye, O.O.; Adewumi, T.A.; Adewuya, A.O. Effect of psychological and other factors on quality of life amongst asthma outpatients in Lagos, Nigeria. Respir. Med. 2017, 122, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Migaou-Miled, H.; Ben-Brahim, H.; Hadj-Hassine, Y.; Boudokhane, S.; Abdelkafi, N.; Haj-Salah, A.; Abdelkafi, N.; Salah, S.; Jellad, A.; Ben-Salah Frih, Z. Quality of Life and psychological profile of the Tunisian lower limb amputees. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2017, 59, e31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Anagnostis, P.; Efstathiadou, Z.A.; Charizopoulou, M.; Selalmatzidou, D.; Karathanasi, E.; Poulasouchidou, M.; Kita, M. Psychological profile and quality of life in patients with acromegaly in Greece. Is there any difference with other chronic diseases? Endocrine 2014, 47, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lyons, M.D.; Huebner, E.S.; Hills, K.J. Relations among Personality Characteristics. Environmental Events. Coping Behavior and Adolescents’ Life Satisfaction. J. Happiness Stud. 2016, 17, 1033–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mendoza-Núñez, V.M.; Martínez-Maldonado, M.L. Escala de redes de apoyo social para adultos mayores. En: RAL González-Celis RAL. In Evaluación en Psicogerontología; Manual Moderno: Mexico City, Mexico, 2009; pp. 95–112. [Google Scholar]
  42. González-Celis, R.A.L. Autoeficacia para realizar actividades cotidianas (AeRAC) en ancianos mexicanos. In Evaluación en Psicogerontología; Manual Moderno: Mexico City, Mexico, 2009; pp. 47–74. [Google Scholar]
  43. Logsdon, R.G.; Gibbons, L.E.; McCurry, S.M.; Teri, L. Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosom. Med. 2022, 64, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gómez, L.E. Quality of life in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2022, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, D.; Baumeister, R.F.; Yang, C.-C.; Hu, B. Digital communication media use and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2019, 24, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Li, C.; Shi, S.; Yu, Q.; Xiong, Q.; Zhu, F.; Zhang, J.; Hu, Y. The Influence of Stressful Life Events on Adolescents’ Problematic Internet Use: The Mediating Effect of Self-worth and the Moderating Effect of Physical Activity. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2022, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wolfers, L.N.; Utz, S. Social Media Use, Stress and Coping. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 45, 101305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, Y.R.; Schulz, P.J. The effect of information communication technology interventions on reducing social isolation in the elderly: A systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 8, e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Khosravi, P.; Ghapanchi, A.H. Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2016, 85, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhan, L.; Sun, Y.; Wang, N.; Zhang, X. Understanding the influence of social media on people’s life satisfaction through two competing explanatory mechanisms. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 68, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hentschel, S.; Eid, M.; Kutscher, T.J. The Influence of Major Life Events and Personality Traits on the Stability of Affective Well-Being. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 18, 719–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Boyer, L.; Baumstarck, K.; Alessandrini, M.; Hamidou, Z.; Testart, J.; Serres, M.; Arquillière, P.; Auquier, P.; Leroy, T.; Zendjidjian, X. Emotional intelligence and coping strategies as determinants of quality of life in depressed patient–caregiver dyads: An actor–partner interdependence analysis. Compr. Psychiatry 2017, 74, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Burr, D.A.; Castrellon, J.J.; Zald, D.H.; Samanez-Larkin, G.R. Emotion dynamics across adulthood in everyday life: Older adults are more emotionally stable and better at regulating desires. Emotion 2021, 21, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kahneman, D.; Krueger, A.; Schkade, D.; Schwarz, N.; Stone, A. A survey method for characterising daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science 2004, 306, 1103572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. White, M.; Dolan, P. Accounting for the richness of daily activities. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 1000–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fritjers, P.; Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Econ. J. 2004, 114, 641–659. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Structural and psychometric description of the scales contained in PRAEL.
Table 1. Structural and psychometric description of the scales contained in PRAEL.
ScaleFocusSpecific VariablesCronbach’s AlphaDetermKMOBartlettCRAVEDV
PRAEL-SDSociodemographic data1 Sex; 2 Age: 3 Marital status; 4 Place of origin; 5 Place of residence; 6 Educational level; 7 Employment status; 8 Occupation; 9 Economic level; 10 Indicator of independent living; 11 Degree of independence-0.0070.6420.0010.9890.9780.989
PRAEL-PQoLPerceived quality of life1 Physical health; 2 Mood; 3 Memory: 4 Family; 5 Friends; 6 Intimate relationships; 7 Place of residence; 8 Ability to meet basic needs; 9 Ability to perform household tasks; 10 Ability to perform tasks outside the home; 11 Leisure and entertainment; 12 Money; 13 Occupation; 14 Perceived satisfaction; 15 Life in general0.7480.0030.8860.0010.8690.6290.793
PRAEL-EPEveryday practices1 Physical exercise; 2 Mental activity; 3 Self-care activities; 4 Meetings and contact with relatives and friends; 6 Intimate relationships; 7 Training activities; 8 Leisure and social activities; 9 Tourist activities; 10 Volunteering0.8190.0010.8470.0010.6370.4670.683
PRAEL-LEPRAEL-LE-FAVFavorable life experiences1 Close circle; 2 Stage; 3 Description of the most important life event from a small narrative; 4 Emotions; 5 Affect in the short and medium term; 6 Present influence; 7 Coping strategies—acceptance, denial, active, planning, self-distraction, emotional support, instrumental support, emotional discharge, resignation, self-criticism, positive reformulation, humor, and religion.0.6410.0010.7850.0010.8940.810.9
PRAEL-LE-STRStressful life experiences0.0040.760.0010.8430.4860.697
PRAEL-psychologicalPsychological profiles1 Emotional intelligence; 2 Achievement motivation; 3 Social dimension; 4 Self-efficacy in active ageing0.7690.0010.9050.0010.8580.5450.738
PRAEL-InternetPatterns of use1 Use of web 2.0 tools:
-Social or emotional applications: communication tools; social networks; email; image and sound tools, and apps.
-Instrumental applications: browsers and search engines; cloud tools; functional tools; educational tools; tools for selecting, classifying and sharing information, and office automation tools.
2 Perceived benefits		0.7420.0460.8760.0010.810.5840.764
Note: CR, Compound Reliability; AVE, Average Variance Extracted; CV, Convergent Validity; DV, Discriminant Validity (Square Root of AVE/CV).
Table
Table 2. Daily practices according to perceived quality of life.
Table 2. Daily practices according to perceived quality of life.
BadOkayGoodExcellent
VariablesXσXσXσXσFpη2
Personal hygiene4.710.764.810.514.900.374.970.175.580.010.02
Healthy eating4.011.293.941.014.240.854.430.888.170.010.02
Sleep2.570.792.950.643.050.493.020.493.100.030.01
Health self-care3.711.113.900.974.360.774.670.5628.300.010.07
Taking day-to-day decisions4.140.904.320.764.630.634.870.3722.910.010.06
Taking important decisions4.010.824.270.794.580.714.840.4920.410.010.05
Decisions taken by other people3.711.383.680.984.050.814.280.7813.970.010.04
Planning ahead2.861.223.531.053.861.144.051.276.890.010.02
Control of negative emotions2.860.903.240.994.010.794.340.9148.040.010.12
Money management4.431.134.300.874.660.754.790.6611.120.010.03
Access to necessary material things3.571.274.010.884.520.654.730.5834.680.010.09
Savings3.431.134.021.094.180.934.350.984.810.010.01
Social support2.430.983.560.964.020.994.261.1517.410.010.05
Defence of own rights3.861.223.930.944.310.794.650.6623.500.010.06
Legal help1.570.792.331.182.701.202.901.407.450.010.02
Physical activity3.861.073.551.234.050.984.240.8512.860.010.03
Mental activity4.011.413.971.254.380.944.630.8612.260.010.03
Visits from family1.710.762.811.203.370.953.611.0422.580.010.06
Visits from friends1.290.762.531.012.920.923.250.8823.830.010.06
Family reunion outside the home2.291.252.901.013.430.853.550.8818.430.010.05
Friends reunion outside the home1.861.223.490.973.850.814.010.7823.500.010.06
Family contacts2.710.763.970.964.410.784.570.6925.870.010.07
Friends contacts2.861.354.090.894.420.754.640.5825.010.010.07
Intimate relationships1.290.762.521.282.921.183.201.2312.870.010.03
Leisure at home3.711.704.260.864.500.744.610.747.810.010.02
Daily activities in the street4.290.954.160.744.370.704.510.676.430.010.02
Tourism activities1.710.762.300.682.720.742.920.8021.770.010.06
Learning activities3.011.163.581.283.911.094.081.017.040.010.02
Recreational activities2.140.902.960.903.410.713.560.7024.170.010.06
Civic participation activities2.141.352.200.912.561.062.691.175.530.010.02
Volunteering1.431.131.500.811.851.012.141.3010.070.010.03
Benefits—autonomy3.711.383.491.173.531.233.811.293.190.020.01
Benefits—physical and mental health2.140.692.750.882.951.053.271.239.110.010.03
Benefits—social participation2.141.462.981.113.331.093.731.2015.680.010.04
Benefits—social network2.571.512.721.213.151.083.531.2414.320.010.04
Benefits—mood2.141.072.640.993.020.973.331.1713.950.010.04
Benefits—perceived satisfaction2.011.012.711.083.141.043.491.2616.070.010.04
Benefits—general life1.570.982.740.963.281.013.601.2023.750.010.06
Total benefits16.294.9920.025.3122.415.9524.767.0218.920.010.05
Table
Table 3. Daily practices according to perceived satisfaction.
Table 3. Daily practices according to perceived satisfaction.
BadOkayGoodExcellent
VariablesXσXσXσXσFpη2
Personal hygiene4.500.914.850.454.900.374.950.217.750.010.02
Healthy eating3.081.013.871.114.280.804.420.8819.800.010.05
Health self-care3.51.243.920.924.390.754.640.6032.980.010.08
Taking day-to-day decisions3.671.074.400.744.640.624.840.4027.690.010.07
Taking important decisions3.500.804.320.834.590.694.830.4729.010.010.07
Decisions taken by other people3.331.303.710.964.060.794.280.7817.860.010.05
Planning ahead2.750.753.601.063.851.154.081.249.240.010.03
Control of negative emotions2.751.143.390.943.990.804.380.8551.090.010.12
Money management4.081.084.470.824.650.754.770.717.040.010.02
Access to necessary material things3.251.144.230.804.510.664.680.6027.560.010.07
Savings3.581.314.031.014.200.934.290.993.850.010.01
Social support2.500.913.691.024.030.994.211.1216.910.010.05
Defence of own rights3.331.074.010.844.320.804.650.6728.600.010.07
Legal help1.831.032.421.232.711.202.851.355.640.010.02
Physical activity3.501.243.571.214.050.974.300.8018.390.010.05
Mental activity3.751.294.061.244.350.964.690.7516.120.010.04
Visits from family2.581.562.871.103.370.963.610.9919.470.010.05
Visits from friends2.171.032.580.952.930.913.200.9416.530.010.04
Family reunion outside the home2.330.893.071.013.420.873.560.8415.460.010.04
Friends reunion outside the home3.081.243.510.993.850.803.990.7913.390.010.04
Family contacts3.170.844.111.014.390.784.580.6620.770.010.05
Friends contacts3.751.294.200.894.410.754.610.6312.520.010.03
Intimate relationships1.921.172.431.232.971.173.141.2413.970.010.04
Household chores3.580.674.390.934.620.674.530.8810.250.010.03
Leisure at home3.831.194.290.854.510.744.590.757.560.010.02
Daily activities in the street3.830.724.180.794.390.684.510.699.390.010.03
Tourism activities1.830.582.320.582.730.742.950.8327.340.010.07
Learning activities2.751.293.641.223.901.084.121.0110.630.010.03
Recreational activities2.581.173.040.803.410.733.550.7019.580.010.05
Civic participation activities1.750.452.421.052.521.052.721.165.110.010.01
Volunteering1.330.891.590.871.851.022.131.289.230.010.03
Use—social networks4.581.442.382.512.542.502.852.483.850.010.01
Benefits—physical and mental health2.580.902.710.932.951.043.271.239.730.010.03
Benefits—social participation1.751.292.091.153.331.083.661.2210.190.010.03
Benefits—social networks2.631.472.781.173.191.083.411.249.890.010.03
Benefits—mood2.501.092.730.923.030.983.261.199.280.010.03
Benefits—perceived satisfaction2.171.032.841.033.151.053.431.2412.400.010.03
Benefits—general life2.170.943.040.993.241.043.591.1714.060.010.04
Total benefits18.505.7620.795.3022.436.0224.367.0212.890.010.03
Table
Table 4. Life experiences according to perceived quality of life.
Table 4. Life experiences according to perceived quality of life.
BadOkayGoodExcellent
VariablesXσXσXσXσFpη2
Favorable life experiences
Stage12.862.6710.974.3012.023.8012.063.682.730.040.01
Current impact3.572.444.431.604.741.114.821.164.450.010.01
Current impact evaluation2.572.233.651.604.321.184.551.2018.090.010.05
Current impact—perceived satisfaction2.862.672.982.513.212.403.322.453.100.030.01
Current impact—social participation0.711.890.751.801.202.141.462.282.890.040.01
Stressful life experiences
Area59.2934.0943.6726.1238.4729.2235.2830.013.320.020.01
Emotions—disgust0.711.890.971.990.381.330.481.475.620.010.02
Emotions—anxiety3.572.443.542.282.912.472.282.507.430.010.02
Emotions—hostility2.142.670.841.880.591.340.501.506.450.010.02
Emotions—aggressiveness2.142.670.531.550.180.940.111.0711.020.010.03
Emotions—frustration2.142.672.262.501.632.351.372.243.740.010.01
Emotions—shame0.500.010.841.880.381.330.281.164.800.010.01
Emotions—guilt0.711.891.152.110.621.650.521.533.830.010.01
Emotions—helplessness4.291.891.902.440.951.960.8452.0113.230.010.04
Emotions—apathy1.432.441.202.140.371.300.301.2013.480.010.04
Coping—acceptance2.142.672.082.482.812.482.942.473.470.020.01
Coping—denial0.711.890.621.660.211.010.221.025.050.010.01
Coping—emotional support0.711.892.082.482.702.492.802.504.200.010.01
Coping—resignation1.432.441.772.401.172.121.012.013.450.020.01
Coping—self-criticism1.010.010.971.990.351.270.241.078.830.010.02
Coping—positive reformulation0.010.011.112.091.242.161.592.332.630.050.01
Effects—worse life3.572.442.172.491.012.010.701.7317.800.010.05
Effects—learning0.711.891.732.392.792.492.962.468.500.010.02
Effects—addictions1.010.010.271.130.090.660.010.014.230.010.01
Effects—physical health0.711.890.661.700.311.210.331.242.700.050.01
Effects—mental health1.010.011.682.370.501.490.411.3820.120.010.05
Effects—social0.711.891.592.340.411.380.261.1124.010.010.06
Effects—finances1.432.440.441.430.251.090.170.924.080.010.01
Effects—personal confidence1.432.441.592.340.561.580.301.2017.550.010.05
Effects—isolation2.142.671.812.420.361.290.20.9742.140.010.10
Effects—life control0.711.890.751.800.241.060.200.977.440.010.02
Effects—neglect0.711.890.531.550.110.730.110.739.110.010.03
Current impact5.010.014.471.553.612.243.352.367.630.010.02
Current impact—physical health2.862.670.891.920.441.420.441.418.950.010.02
Current impact—mental health1.432.441.732.390.501.500.481.4720.080.010.05
Current impact—mood3.572.443.672.222.102.471.632.3519.330.010.05
Current impact—social relations2.862.672.082.481.152.100.941.959.290.010.03
Current impact—autonomy0.711.891.062.050.561.570.461.443.910.010.01
Current impact— perceived satisfaction3.572.441.862.430.761.800.741.7816.590.010.04
Current impact—social participation0.711.891.062.050.431.410.441.416.030.010.02
Current impact—material2.142.670.751.800.391.340.150.869.440.010.03
Current impact—work0.711.890.491.490.261.120.130.803.010.030.01
Table
Table 5. Life experiences according to perceived satisfaction.
Table 5. Life experiences according to perceived satisfaction.
BadOkayGoodExcellent
VariablesXσXσXσXσFpη2
Favourable life experiences
Stage10.832.8911.083.9912.033.8512.193.683.250.020.01
Emotions—satisfaction2.502.613.182.413.252.393.702.202.990.030.01
Emotions—surprise0.010.010.501.740.551.470.751.792.710.040.01
Emotions—life change1.252.263.362.363.412.333.502.303.590.010.01
Effects—mental health0.831.950.981.990.451.430.401.355.690.010.02
Effects—finances1.252.260.731.780.441.420.401.352.970.030.01
Current impact—assessment2.831.753.951.494.311.194.491.2311.030.010.03
Current impact—physical health0.421.440.841.880.992.011.922.212.620.050.01
Current impact—mental health0.421.441.472.291.552.221.902.434.510.010.01
Current impact—social participation0.831.950.831.781.182.131.542.314.580.010.01
Current impact—work0.010.010.561.580.621.520.831.862.930.030.01
Stressful life experiences
Area54.1730.0642.4228.2038.5429.2035.3129.403.030.030.01
Emotions—disgust1.252.260.941.960.461.290.441.417.720.010.02
Emotions—anxiety3.752.263.252.392.982.462.232.497.760.010.02
Emotions—fear2.922.581.892.431.492.291.252.173.970.010.01
Emotions—hostility1.672.460.871.910.481.320.441.417.500.010.02
Emotions—aggressiveness0.831.950.561.580.190.960.180.936.240.010.02
Emotions—frustration2.502.612.312.501.572.321.422.265.340.010.02
Emotions—shame1.252.260.771.810.401.350.180.937.410.010.02
Emotions—guilt2.082.580.941.960.641.670.471.475.300.010.01
Emotions—helplessness3.752.261.852.420.961.940.951.9615.800.010.04
Emotions—envy0.421.440.251.080.100.710.060.542.610.050.01
Emotions—apathy2.502.610.871.910.381.320.301.1814.630.010.04
Coping—acceptance1.252.262.172.492.752.493.182.416.710.010.02
Coping—denial0.721.440.631.660.210.990.180.936.510.010.02
Coping—emotional support2.421.442.272.502.172.502.132.504.230.010.01
Coping—instrumental support0.421.441.502.301.532.091.891.923.130.030.01
Coping—emotional discharging0.010.010.731.781.322.201.332.034.770.010.01
Coping—resignation2.922.581.542.321.152.111.052.044.350.010.01
Coping—self-criticism1.672.460.871.910.341.260.180.9312.790.010.03
Coping—positive reformulation1.252.261.521.541.562.231.642.317.300.010.02
Effects—worse life2.922.582.032.460.931.950.831.8616.400.010.04
Effects—learning1.252.261.502.302.882.472.952.4714.910.010.04
Effects—dependency0.421.440.251.080.080.630.010.015.350.010.02
Effects—physical health1.252.260.631.660.301.190.301.184.750.010.01
Effects—mental health1.672.461.472.290.491.480.361.2919.360.010.05
Effects—social2.082.581.222.160.401.360.301.1818.700.010.05
Effects—personal confidence2.502.611.572.330.531.540.241.0728.350.010.07
Effects—isolation2.922.581.222.160.401.350.20.9828.550.010.07
Effects—life control1.672.460.701.740.210.990.200.9813.770.010.04
Effects—neglect0.831.950.461.440.120.760.060.549.740.010.03
Current impact5.010.014.091.943.682.203.262.396.090.010.02
Current impact—physical health0.931.950.911.940.441.410.441.414.370.010.01
Current impact—mental health1.672.461.402.250.691.480.531.5514.300.010.04
Current impact—mood5.010.013.082.442.132.471.662.3615.850.010.04
Current impact—social relations3.752.261.712.381.182.130.871.9010.700.010.03
Current impact—autonomy1.252.260.911.940.591.520.571.603.060.030.01
Current impact—perceived satisfaction3.752.261.612.340.761.790.691.7318.560.010.05
Current impact—social participation1.252.260.771.810.471.460.401.353.040.030.01
Current impact—material2.502.610.491.490.401.360.180.9312.810.010.03
Current impact—work1.252.260.391.340.261.110.160.884.500.010.01
Table
Table 6. Psychological profiles according to perceived quality of life.
Table 6. Psychological profiles according to perceived quality of life.
BadOkayGoodExcellent
VariablesXσXσXσXσFpη2
Emotional intelligence—own emotions2.011.013.840.714.190.644.350.6615.380.010.04
Emotional intelligence—external emotions2.861.073.590.783.830.604.040.5919.610.010.05
Emotional intelligence—emotional expression2.431.623.040.903.500.943.751.0117.010.010.05
Emotional intelligence—emotional control2.431.403.220.853.580.823.890.8222.320.010.06
Emotional intelligence—assertiveness2.861.223.481.013.850.884.130.9016.400.010.04
Total emotional intelligence 17.433.6920.612.8722.352.6223.612.7840.420.010.10
Achievement motivation2.011.163.750.754.110.674.410.6325.660.010.07
Motivation—intrinsic2.711.113.670.784.110.704.40.7327.360.010.07
Total motivation10.511.8010.651.5411.421.4912.011.4821.390.010.06
Attribution—success6.296.804.274.773.213.402.862.766.060.010.02
Social dimension—size1.430.542.541.203.581.013.950.9559.200.010.14
Social dimension—social skills3.571.273.111.183.770.914.150.7633.170.010.08
Social dimension—loneliness1.711.112.631.173.901.034.370.8685.760.010.19
Social dimension—emotional support2.711.703.491.094.180.844.550.6547.550.010.12
Social dimension—instrumental support2.291.253.531.063.980.884.410.7336.770.010.09
Social dimension—information support2.431.623.411.163.920.894.370.7436.870.010.09
Social dimension—subjective assessment3.011.533.330.934.090.754.580.5678.660.010.18
Total social dimension28.866.4732.675.5138.854.9142.373.81115.010.010.24
Self-efficacy—personal care4.571.134.710.594.880.434.980.1712.010.010.03
Self-efficacy—physical exercise4.011.414.061.064.500.784.750.5920.420.010.05
Self-efficacy—mental activity4.011.294.230.854.670.594.870.3732.850.010.08
Self-efficacy—household tasks4.171.134.380.874.610.734.810.529.950.010.03
Self-efficacy—activities outside the home4.571.134.430.744.710.604.920.2919.610.010.05
Self-efficacy—social relationships3.011.413.891.014.620.644.880.3760.600.010.14
Self-efficacy—learning activities4.011.414.380.694.680.594.840.4119.110.010.05
Self-efficacy—leisure4.011.414.220.814.650.614.870.4031.290.010.08
Self-efficacy—management of finances4.011.734.420.784.700.574.930.2925.670.010.07
Total self-efficacy37.7110.0138.724.8242.024.0543.852.1647.130.010.12
Table
Table 7. Psychological profiles according to perceived satisfaction.
Table 7. Psychological profiles according to perceived satisfaction.
BadOkayGoodExcellent
VariablesXσXσXσXσFpη2
Emotional intelligence—own emotions3.830.723.950.724.170.644.390.6515.400.010.04
Emotional intelligence—external emotions3.171.033.680.743.820.604.030.6015.920.010.04
Emotional intelligence—emotional expression2.501.173.050.943.510.923.780.9922.980.010.06
Emotional intelligence—emotional control3.011.213.250.833.550.823.970.7929.550.010.08
Emotional intelligence—assertiveness2.420.673.600.963.830.894.170.8724.730.010.06
Total emotional intelligence 18.172.8620.862.7322.282.6323.82.6850.210.010.12
Achievement motivation3.420.903.780.724.100.664.460.6338.710.010.10
Motivation—intrinsic3.500.803.750.764.090.714.460.7035.070.010.09
Total motivation9.921.3110.731.5311.401.4712.121.4633.170.010.08
Attribution—success10.676.134.344.683.093.262.792.5926.180.010.07
Social dimension—size1.670.992.841.193.551.023.960.9649.320.010.12
Social dimension—social skills2.581.383.341.113.750.914.180.7833.910.010.09
Social dimension—loneliness1.750.622.981.203.891.054.350.8770.810.010.16
Social dimension—emotional support3.011.353.621.074.200.814.490.7640.450.010.10
Social dimension—instrumental support2.671.073.631.033.980.884.380.7733.660.010.09
Social dimension—information support2.671.443.521.113.930.894.320.7933.130.010.08
Social dimension—subjective assessment3.171.273.500.954.090.744.540.6165.150.010.15
Total social dimension27.425.6534.175.3538.804.8642.344.14113.450.010.24
Self-efficacy—personal care4.750.874.890.694.890.384.960.2313.570.010.04
Self-efficacy—physical exercise4.081.174.131.074.510.774.720.6018.350.010.05
Self-efficacy—mental activity4.330.894.320.834.650.604.900.3430.920.010.08
Self-efficacy—household tasks4.670.894.330.974.650.674.740.6310.890.010.03
Self-efficacy—activities outside the home4.370.894.480.784.720.564.880.4315.440.010.04
Self-efficacy—social relationships3.581.314.150.934.600.674.880.3646.310.010.11
Self-efficacy—learning activities4.330.894.440.784.670.584.870.3819.150.010.05
Self-efficacy—leisure4.250.974.320.864.650.604.860.4025.950.010.07
Self-efficacy—management of finances4.331.234.450.784.710.564.890.3720.250.010.05
Total self-efficacy39.017.5239.295.4442.053.8743.692.5041.070.010.10
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Díaz-Prieto, C.; García-Sánchez, J.-N.; Canedo-García, A. Patterns of Quality of Life and Perceived Satisfaction in Adults and Elderly in Spain: Daily Practices, Life Experiences and Psychological Profiles. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116905

AMA Style

Díaz-Prieto C, García-Sánchez J-N, Canedo-García A. Patterns of Quality of Life and Perceived Satisfaction in Adults and Elderly in Spain: Daily Practices, Life Experiences and Psychological Profiles. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11):6905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116905

Chicago/Turabian Style

Díaz-Prieto, Cristina, Jesús-Nicasio García-Sánchez, and Alejandro Canedo-García. 2022. "Patterns of Quality of Life and Perceived Satisfaction in Adults and Elderly in Spain: Daily Practices, Life Experiences and Psychological Profiles" Sustainability 14, no. 11: 6905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116905

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop