4.6 Article

US General Population Estimate for Excellent to Poor Self-Rated Health Item

Journal

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 1511-1516

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-015-3290-x

Keywords

health status; quality of life; survey research; outcomes

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [P30AG028748, P30AG021684]
  2. National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities [P20MD000182]
  3. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [1U2-CCA186878-01]
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Northwestern University) [U54AR057951, U01AR052177, U54AR057943]
  5. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (American Institutes for Research) [U54AR057926]
  6. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (State University of New York) [U01AR057948, U01AR052170]
  7. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of Washington, Seattle) [U01AR057954, U01AR052171]
  8. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) [U01AR052181]
  9. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia) [U01AR057956]
  10. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Stanford University) [U01AR052158]
  11. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Boston University) [U01AR057929]
  12. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of California, Los Angeles) [U01AR057936]
  13. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of Pittsburgh) [U01AR052155]
  14. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Georgetown University) [U01AR057971]
  15. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati) [U01AR057940]
  16. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of Maryland, Baltimore) [U01AR057967]
  17. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Duke University) [U01AR052186]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The most commonly used self-reported health question asks people to rate their general health from excellent to poor. This is one of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health items. Four other items are used for scoring on the PROMIS global physical health scale. Because the single item is used on the majority of large national health surveys in the U.S., it is useful to construct scores that can be compared to U.S. general population norms. To estimate the PROMIS global physical health scale score from the responses to the single excellent to poor self-rated health question for use in public health surveillance, research, and clinical assessment. A cross-sectional survey of 21,133 individuals, weighted to be representative of the U.S. general population. The PROMIS items were administered via a Web-based survey to 19,601 persons in a national panel and 1,532 subjects from PROMIS research sites. The average age of individuals in the sample was 53 years, 52 % were female, 80 % were non-Hispanic white, and 19 % had a high school degree or lower level of education. PROMIS global physical health scale. The product-moment correlation of the single item with the PROMIS global physical health scale score was 0.81. The estimated scale score based on responses to the single item ranged from 29 (poor self-rated health, 2.1 SDs worse than the general population mean) to 62 (excellent self-rated health, 1.2 SDs better than the general population mean) on a T-score metric (mean of 50). This item can be used to estimate scores for the PROMIS global physical health scale for use in monitoring population health and achieving public health objectives. The item may also be used for individual assessment, but its reliability (0.52) is lower than that of the PROMIS global health scale (0.81).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available