Garbarski Dana, Dykema Jennifer, Croes Kenneth D, Edwards Dorothy F
Department of Sociology, Loyola University Chicago, Coffey Hall 440, 1032 W. Sheridan Rd, Chicago, IL, 60660, USA.
University of Wisconsin Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 475 N. Charter Street, Room 4308, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
BMC Public Health. 2017 Oct 4;17(1):771. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4761-2.
Self-rated health (SRH) is widely used to measure subjective health. Yet it is unclear what underlies health ratings, with implications for understanding the validity of SRH overall and across sociodemographic characteristics. We analyze participants' explanations of how they formulated their SRH answer in addition to which health factors they considered and examine group differences in these processes.
Cognitive interviews were conducted with 64 participants in a convenience quota sample crossing dimensions of race/ethnicity (white, Latino, black, American Indian), gender, age, and education. Participants rated their health then described their thoughts when answering SRH. We coded participants' answers in an inductive, iterative, and systematic process from interview transcripts, developing analytic categories (i.e., themes) and subdimensions within. We examined whether the presence of each dimension of an analytic category varied across sociodemographic groups.
Our qualitative analysis led to the identification and classification of various subdimensions of the following analytic categories: types of health factors mentioned, valence of health factors, temporality of health factors, conditional health statements, and descriptions and definitions of health. We found differences across groups in some types of health factors mentioned-corresponding, conflicting, or novel with respect to prior research. Furthermore, we also documented various processes through which respondents integrate seemingly disparate health factors to formulate an answer through valence and conditional health statements. Finally, we found some evidence of sociodemographic group differences with respect to types of health factors mentioned, valence of health factors, and conditional health statements, highlighting avenues for future research.
This study provides a description of how participants rate their general health status and highlights potential differences in these processes across sociodemographic groups, helping to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how SRH functions as a measure of health.
自评健康(SRH)被广泛用于衡量主观健康状况。然而,尚不清楚健康评级的依据是什么,这对理解SRH在总体上以及不同社会人口学特征方面的有效性具有重要意义。除了分析参与者考虑的健康因素外,我们还分析了他们对如何得出SRH答案的解释,并研究了这些过程中的群体差异。
对64名参与者进行了认知访谈,这些参与者来自一个便利配额样本,涵盖种族/族裔(白人、拉丁裔、黑人、美国印第安人)、性别、年龄和教育程度等维度。参与者先对自己的健康状况进行评分,然后描述他们在回答SRH问题时的想法。我们通过归纳、迭代和系统的过程,对访谈记录中的参与者回答进行编码,形成分析类别(即主题)及其内部的子维度。我们研究了分析类别的每个维度在不同社会人口学群体中的存在情况是否有所不同。
我们的定性分析导致对以下分析类别的各种子维度进行了识别和分类:提及的健康因素类型、健康因素的效价、健康因素的时间性、有条件的健康陈述以及健康的描述和定义。我们发现,在提及的某些健康因素类型方面,不同群体之间存在差异——与先前的研究一致、相互矛盾或新颖。此外,我们还记录了受访者通过效价和有条件的健康陈述将看似不同的健康因素整合起来以形成答案的各种过程。最后,我们发现了一些证据,表明在提及的健康因素类型、健康因素的效价和有条件的健康陈述方面存在社会人口学群体差异,这突出了未来研究的方向。
本研究描述了参与者如何对其总体健康状况进行评分,并强调了这些过程在不同社会人口学群体中的潜在差异,有助于更全面地理解SRH作为健康衡量指标的作用。