Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Research article

A cross-sectional and semantic investigation of self-rated health in the northern Sweden MONICA-study

Authors: Göran Waller, Peder Thalén, Urban Janlert, Katarina Hamberg, Annika Forssén

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Self-Rated Health (SRH) correlates with risk of illness and death. But how are different questions of SRH to be interpreted? Does it matter whether one asks: “How would you assess your general state of health?”(General SRH) or “How would you assess your general state of health compared to persons of your own age?”(Comparative SRH)? Does the context in a questionnaire affect the answers? The aim of this paper is to examine the meaning of two questions on self-rated health, the statistical distribution of the answers, and whether the context of the question in a questionnaire affects the answers.

Methods

Statistical and semantic methodologies were used to analyse the answers of two different SRH questions in a cross-sectional survey, the MONICA-project of northern Sweden.

Results

The answers from 3504 persons were analysed. The statistical distributions of answers differed. The most common answer to the General SRH was “good”, while the most common answer to the Comparative SRH was “similar”. The semantic analysis showed that what is assessed in SRH is not health in a medical and lexical sense but fields of association connected to health, for example health behaviour, functional ability, youth, looks, way of life. The meaning and function of the two questions differ – mainly due to the comparing reference in Comparative SRH. The context in the questionnaire may have affected the statistics.

Conclusions

Health is primarily assessed in terms of its sense-relations (associations) and Comparative SRH and General SRH contain different information on SRH. Comparative SRH is semantically more distinct. The context of the questions in a questionnaire may affect the way self-rated health questions are answered. Comparative SRH should not be eliminated from use in questionnaires. Its usefulness in clinical encounters should be investigated.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Idler EL, Benyamini Y: Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav. 1997, 38: 21-37. 10.2307/2955359.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Jylhä M: What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Soc Sci Med. 2009, 69: 307-316. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.013.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Manderbacka K, Lundberg O, Martikainen P: Do risk factors and health behaviours contribute to self-ratings of health?. Soc Sci Med. 1999, 48: 1713-1720. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00068-4.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Eriksson I, Undén AL, Elofsson S: Self-rated health. Comparisons between three different measures. Results from a population study. Int J Epidemiol. 2001, 30: 326-333. 10.1093/ije/30.2.326.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Benyamini , Leventhal EA, Leventhal H: Gender differences in processing information for making self-assessments of health. Psychosom Med. 2000, 62: 354-364.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Aittomäki A, Martikainen P, Laaksonen M, Lahelma E, Rahkonen O: The associations of household wealth and income with self-rated health–a study on economic advantage in middle-aged Finnish men and women. Soc Sci Med. 2010, 71: 1018-1026. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.040.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Snelgrove JW, Pikhart H, Stafford M: A multilevel analysis of social capital and self-rated health: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Soc Sci Med. 2009, 68: 1993-2001. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.011.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Breidablik H-J, Meland E, Lydersen S: Self-rated health during adolescence: stability and predictors of change (Young-HUNT study, Norway). Eur J Public Health. 2009, 19: 73-78.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kemeney , Taylor , Reed , Bower , Grunewald : Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. Am Psychol. 2000, 55: 99-109.CrossRef
10.
Health Interview Surveys. Towards international harmonization of metods and instruments. Edited by: Bruin A, Picavet HSJ, Nossikov A. 1996, WHO regional publications. European series; No 58
11.
Baron-Epel O, Kaplan G: General subjective health status or age-related subjective health status: does it make a difference?. Soc Sci Med. 2001, 53: 1373-1381. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00426-3.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sargent-Cox KA, Anstey KJ, Luszcz MA: Determinants of self-rated health items with different points of reference: implications for health measurement of older adults. J Aging Health. 2008, 20: 739-761. 10.1177/0898264308321035.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Stegmayr B, Lundberg V, Asplund K: The events registration and survey procedures in the Northern Sweden MONICA Project. Scand J Public Health Suppl. 2003, 61: 9-17.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Lyons J: Linguistic semantics: An introduction. 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New YorkCrossRef
15.
Wittgenstein L: Philosophical Investigations. Filosofiska undersökningar. 1953, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Stockholm 1992
16.
Wilkinson R: The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. 2009, Bloomsbury Press, New York, 1 American ed
17.
Marmot M: The status syndrome: How social standing affects our health and longevity. 2005, Henry Holt, New York, 1 Owl Books ed
18.
Breetvelt IS, Van Dam FS: Underreporting by cancer patients: the case of response-shift. Soc Sci Med. 1991, 32: 981-987. 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90156-7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Wood JV, Taylor SE, Lichtman RR: Social comparison in adjustment to breast cancer. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985, 49: 1169-1183.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Vuorisalmi M, Lintonen T, Jylhä M: Global self-rated health data from a longitudinal study predicted mortality better than comparative self-rated health in old age. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 680-687. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.11.025.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A cross-sectional and semantic investigation of self-rated health in the northern Sweden MONICA-study
Authors
Göran Waller
Peder Thalén
Urban Janlert
Katarina Hamberg
Annika Forssén
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-154

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2012 Go to the issue

Research article

Bias and imprecision in posture percentile variables estimated from short exposure samples

Research article

The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews

Research article

Alternative analyses for handling incomplete follow-up in the intention-to-treat analysis: the randomized controlled trial of balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE)

Research article

Evaluating current automatic de-identification methods with Veteran’s health administration clinical documents

Correspondence

Methods for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project

Research article

Comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials using clinical risk-benefit analysis