Does the single-item self-rated health measure the same thing across different wordings? Construct validity study

Cullati, Stéphane; Bochatay, Naïke; Rossier, Clémentine; Guessous, Idris; Burton-Jeangros, Claudine; Courvoisier, Delphine S.

doi:10.1007/s11136-020-02533-2

Cited by 39 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More specifically, we assessed SRH using the first item of the Short Form Survey (SF12v2), a health-related questionnaire validated in various languages [ 34 ]. Participants rated their health on a 5-point scale by answering the question “Overall, do you think your health is (1) excellent, (2) very good, (3) good, (4) fair or (5) poor?” We then dichotomized this variable to emphasize positive options, as this dichotomization has recently been found to better reflect one’s health status than coding schemes stressing negative ratings [ 35 ]. The modalities (3) good, (4) fair and (5) poor were hence used as reference and were attributed the value 0.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-rated health among undocumented and newly regularized migrants in Geneva: a cross-sectional study

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In Europe, knowledge about the social determinants of health among undocumented migrants is scarce. The canton of Geneva, Switzerland, implemented in 2017–2018 a pilot public policy aiming at regularizing undocumented migrants. We sought to test for associations between self-rated health, proven eligibility for residence status regularization and social and economic integration. Methods This paper reports data from the first wave of the Parchemins Study, a prospective study whose aim is to investigate the effect of residence status regularization on undocumented migrants’ living conditions and health. The convenience sample included undocumented migrants living in Geneva for at least 3 years. We categorized them into those who were in the process of receiving or had just been granted a residence permit (eligible or newly regularized) and those who had not applied or were ineligible for regularization (undocumented). We conducted multivariate regression analyses to determine factors associated with better self-rated health, i.e., with excellent/very good vs. good/fair/poor self-rated health. Among these factors, measures of integration, social support and economic resources were included. Results Of the 437 participants, 202 (46%) belonged to the eligible or newly regularized group. This group reported better health more frequently than the undocumented group (44.6% versus 28.9%, p-value < .001), but the association was no longer significant after adjustment for social support and economic factors (odds ratio (OR): 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67–1.87). Overall, better health was associated with larger social networks (OR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.04–2.64). This association remained significant even after adjusting for health-related variables. Conclusion At the onset of the regularization program, access to regularization was not associated with better self-rated health. Policies aiming at favouring undocumented migrants’ inclusion and engagement in social networks may promote better health. Future research should investigate long-term effects of residence status regularization on self-rated health.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-rated health among undocumented and newly regularized migrants in Geneva: a cross-sectional study

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Self-rated health was assessed using the single item “How would you rate your present state of health?” which was rated on a 5-point scale from very good to very bad , that is, higher scores indicate worse self-rated health. This single-item assessment is frequently used to measure self-rated health and provides a valid assessment of individual self-perceived health status (Cullati et al, 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gain- but not loss-related self-perceptions of aging predict mortality over a period of 23 years: A multidimensional approach.

Wurm¹,

Michael²

2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some 2 decades have passed since Levy et al. (2002) published their seminal study on the impact of selfperceptions of aging (SPA) on mortality over a period of 23 years in this journal; we aimed at replicating and extending these findings against the background of recent discussions in the research on subjective aging. Based on a large German nationwide population-based sample of individuals aged 40 and older (N = 2,400), for whom mortality was also documented over a period of 23 years , the present study is the first to investigate the unique impact of gain-and loss-related SPA and subjective age (SA) as components of subjective aging on mortality. Data were analyzed with hierarchical Cox proportional hazard regressions. The study pointed to the prominent role of gain-related SPA. For individuals who perceived aging as associated with ongoing development risk of death was half that of individuals with less gain-related SPA. Viewing aging as associated with physical or social losses could not predict mortality after controlling for covariates such as age, gender, education, health-related variables, and psychological variables known to predict mortality. Neither could SA predict mortality. When SA and gain-and loss-related SPA were analyzed in a combined model, gain-related SPA remained a significant predictor of mortality. The findings support previous studies on the importance of SPA for mortality. In addition, the results suggest that mainly gain-related SPA (but not loss-related SPA and SA) explain differences in mortality and should thus be addressed in intervention studies.

show abstract

“…General SRH was measured using the following first question of the Short-form health survey (SF-36): “In general, would you say your health is: excellent, very good, good, poor, and very poor?” [ 31 ]. Participants were divided into two groups: good SRH, by collapsing the excellent, very good, and good responses and poor SRH, by collapsing the poor and very poor responses, as applied in previous studies [ 32 , 33 ]. Such transformation is simple, improves statistical analyses, allows for keeping respondents’ answers in their original response options (instead of dichotomizing response options), and improves the interpretation of mean SRH values in populations groups [ 32 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

General and comparative self-rated health in chronic stroke: an important outcome measure for health professionals

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background After a stroke, several aspects of health and function may influence how individuals perceive their own health. However, self-rated health (SRH), as well as its relationship with functioning, has been little explored in individuals with stroke. The aims of this study were to determine how individuals with chronic post-stroke disabilities evaluate their health, considering general, time- and age-comparative SRH questions and to investigate whether SRH measures would be influenced by the following health and functioning domains: mental/physical functions and personal factors. Methods Sixty-nine individuals with chronic post-stroke disabilities answered the three types of SRH questions and were assessed regarding depressive symptoms (emotional function domain), physical activity levels (physical function domain), and engagement in physical activity practice (personal factor domain). Subjects were divided into the following groups: good/poor for the general SRH question; better, similar, and "worse" for both time- and age-comparative questions. Between-group differences in the three domains for each SRH question were investigated (α = 5%). Results General SRH was rated as good by 73% of the participants. Time- and age-comparative SRH was rated as better by 36% and 47% and as similar by 31% and 28% of the subjects, respectively. Significant between-group differences in emotional function were found for both the general and age-comparative questions. For the time-comparative question, significant differences were only observed for physical function. Conclusion SRH evaluation differed in individuals with chronic post-stroke disabilities according to the types of questions and health/functioning domains.

show abstract

Does the single-item self-rated health measure the same thing across different wordings? Construct validity study

Cited by 39 publications

References 38 publications

Self-rated health among undocumented and newly regularized migrants in Geneva: a cross-sectional study

Self-rated health among undocumented and newly regularized migrants in Geneva: a cross-sectional study

Gain- but not loss-related self-perceptions of aging predict mortality over a period of 23 years: A multidimensional approach.

General and comparative self-rated health in chronic stroke: an important outcome measure for health professionals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About