Self-Rated Health Predicts Mortality

Those who rated their health negatively were more likely to have died 30 years later. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

How healthy are you? Your best guess might be pretty accurate: Researchers found that people who gave their health a positive rating were less likely to fall ill or die over the next 30 years than were those who thought they weren’t as healthy. The work is in the journal Public Library of Science ONE. [Matthias Bopp et al., "Health Risk or Resource? Gradual and Independent Association between Self-Rated Health and Mortality Persists over 30 Years"]

More than 8,000 Swiss men and women rated their health on a scale ranging from very poor to excellent. Researchers tracked them 30 years later. Within the same age group, men who rated their health as “very poor” were greater than three times more likely to have died than were those who rated their health as “excellent.” For women, the odds almost doubled.

Nor was this trend limited to the extremes. The chances of dying went up from the “excellent” health group to the “good” one to the “fair” one, and kept increasing up to the “very poor” group.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


And even after researchers took into account risk factors like smoking and medical history, the correlation between self-rated health and mortality remained. Maybe optimism also helps keep the doctor away.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.] 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe