Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Public Health 2005 15(2):200-208; doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki102
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Simon, J.G.
Right arrow Articles by Mackenbach, J.P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Simon, J.G.
Right arrow Articles by Mackenbach, J.P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

Perceived Health

How is your health in general? A qualitative study on self-assessed health

J.G. Simon1, J.B. De Boer2, I.M.A. Joung1, H. Bosma1 and J.P. Mackenbach1

1 Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Correspondence: I.M.A. Joung, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands, tel. +31 10 4087714, fax +31 10 4089449, Email: i.joung{at}erasmusmc.nl

Background: The single-item measure on self-assessed health has been widely used, as it presents researchers with a summary of an individual's general state of health. A qualitative study was initiated to find out which particular aspects are included in health self-assessments; which aspects do people consider when answering the question ‘How is your health in general?’. Subgroup differences were studied with respect to gender, age, health status and health assessment. Methods: Qualitative study with stratification by background characteristic, health status and health assessment (n=40). Results: Almost 80% of the participants referred to one or more physical aspects (chronic illness, physical problems, medical treatment, age-related complaints, prognosis, bodily mechanics, and resilience). However, when assessing their health, participants also include aspects that go beyond the physical dimension of health. In total, 80 percent of the participants—whether or not in addition to physical aspects—referred to other health dimensions. Besides physical aspects, participants considered the extent to which they are able to perform (functional dimension –28%), the extent to which they adapted to, or their attitude towards an existing illness (coping dimension –28%), and simply the way they feel (wellbeing dimension –20%). In this study, health behaviour or lifestyle factors (behavioural dimension –3%) proved to be relatively unimportant in health selfassessments. Conclusions Self-assessed health proved to be a multidimensional concept. For most part, subgroup differences in self-assessed health could be attributed to experience with ill health: being relatively inexperienced with health problems versus having a history of health problems.

Keywords: qualitative study, selfassessed health, stratified sample, subgroup differences


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Research on AgingHome page
S. Shooshtari, V. Menec, and R. Tate
Comparing Predictors of Positive and Negative Self-Rated Health Between Younger (25-54) and Older (55+) Canadian Adults: A Longitudinal Study of Well-Being
Research on Aging, November 1, 2007; 29(6): 512 - 554.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.