Search

BackgroundSelf-rated health status, a subjective measure, is used broadly to describe an individual’s overall health status. Our long-term goal is to create a more objective, comprehensive, and accurate measure of individual health status. We selected 29 health indicators and prioritized them by conducting online surveys. Thirteen of these 29 indicators received relatively more consistent ratings across 3 samples.ObjectivesTo explore the main and interaction effects of 4 demographic factors as independent variables (age, gender, professional group, and educational level) in the importance ratings of the 13 health indicators.MethodsWe conducted a 4-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with post-hoc testing to examine the effects of independent variables on all 13 dependent variables. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation analysis were also conducted.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAn online survey (≥ 18 years).Participants791 participants in the USA.Results13 health indicators were significantly correlated with each other. Age correlated with most of the health indicators (8 of 13). The MANOVA modeling results indicated that gender, age, and education levels significantly affected the combination of the 13 health indicators. There was a significant interaction effect by age and professional group on 5 health indicators.ConclusionsAge is critical in rating the 13 health indicators. Among all the statistically significant main effects of demographic factors, the effect sizes descend regarding age, gender, educational level, and interaction between age and professional group. These results can provide a foundation for further studies to explore behavioral interventions for individual subgroups.Article SummaryStrengths and limitations of this studyThe work establishes the interactions and effects between demographic data (age, gender, education, and professional group) and the perceived importance of 13 health indicators via MANOVA analysisThe interactions and effects of demographic data on the importance ratings of the 13 health indicatorscan guide future study designs for behavioral interventionsDeep analysis of the demographic variables and their effects on and interactions with the rating results are helpful for thoroughly understanding the perspectivesThe study is an observational study despite with relatively large sample size and a robust analysisThe data are not racially representative

BACKGROUND Disease status (eg, cancer stage) has been used in routine clinical practice to determine more accurate treatment plans. Health-related indicators, such as mortality, morbidity, and population group life expectancy, have also been used. However, few studies have specifically focused on the comprehensive and objective measures of individual health status. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to analyze the perspectives of the public toward 29 health indicators obtained from a literature review to provide evidence for further prioritization of the indicators. The difference between health status and disease status should be considered. METHODS This study used a cross-sectional design. Online surveys were administered through Ohio University, ResearchMatch, and Clemson University, resulting in three samples. Participants aged 18 years or older rated the importance of the 29 health indicators. The rating results were aggregated and analyzed as follows (in each case, the dependent variables were the individual survey responses): (1) to determine the agreement among the three samples regarding the importance of each indicator, where the independent variables (IVs) were the three samples; (2) to examine the mean differences between the retained indicators with agreement across the three samples, where the IVs were the identified indicators; and (3) to rank the groups of indicators into various levels after grouping the indicators with no mean differences, where the IVs were the groups of indicators. RESULTS In total, 1153 valid responses were analyzed. Descriptive statistics revealed that the top five–rated indicators were drug or substance abuse, smoking or tobacco use, alcohol abuse, major depression, and diet and nutrition. Among the 29 health indicators, the three samples agreed upon the importance of 13 indicators. Inferential statistical analysis indicated that some of the 13 indicators held equal importance. Therefore, the 13 indicators were categorized by rank into seven levels: level 1 included blood sugar level and immunization and vaccination; level 2 included LDL cholesterol; level 3 included HDL cholesterol, blood triglycerides, cancer screening detection, and total cholesterol; level 4 included health literacy rate; level 5 included personal care needs and air quality index greater than 100; level 6 included self-rated health status and HIV testing; and level 7 included the supply of dentists. Levels 1 to 3 were rated significantly higher than levels 4 to 7. CONCLUSIONS This study provides a baseline for prioritizing 29 health indicators, which can be used by electronic health record or personal health record system designers or developers to determine what can be included in the systems to capture an individual’s health status. Currently, self-rated health status is the predominantly used health indicator. Additionally, this study provides a foundation for tracking and measuring preventive health care services more accurately and for developing an individual health status index.

ObjectiveWe examined the perspectives of the general public on 29 health indicators to provide evidence for further prioritizing the indicators, which were obtained from the literature review. Health status is different from disease status, which can refer to different stages of cancer.DesignThis study uses a cross-sectional design.SettingAn online survey was administered through Ohio University, ResearchMatch, and Clemson University.ParticipantsParticipants included the general public who are 18 years or older. A total of 1153 valid responses were included in the analysis.Primary outcomes measuresParticipants rated the importance of the 29 health indicators. The data were aggregated, cleaned, and analyzed in three ways: (1) to determine the agreement among the three samples on the importance of each indicator (IV = the three samples, DV = individual survey responses); (2) to examine the mean differences between the retained indicators with agreement across the three samples (IV = the identified indicators, DV = individual survey responses); and (3) to rank the groups of indicators after grouping the indicators with no mean differences (IV = the groups of indicators, DV = individual survey responses).ResultsThe descriptive statistics indicate that the top-five rated indicators are drug or substance abuse, smoking or tobacco use, alcohol abuse, major depression, diet and nutrition. The importance of 13 of the 29 health indicators was agreed upon among the three samples. The 13 indicators were categorized into seven groups. Groups 1-3 were rated as significantly higher than Groups 4-7.ConclusionsThis study provides a baseline for prioritizing further the 29 health indicators, which can be used by electronic health records or personal health record system developers. Currently, self-rated health status is used predominantly. Our study provides a foundation to track and measure preventive services more accurately and to develop an individual health status index.Strengths and limitations of this studyThe work establishes the foundation to measure individual health status more comprehensively and objectivelyThe work reflects perspectives from three communities with a relatively large sample sizeThe work provides the foundation to prioritize the 29 health indicators furtherWith real-world longitudinal data, the public perspective data on individual health status measurement would be verified and validated further

Prevention of disease, in addition to disease treatment, is recognized as an important component of a physician’s role. High-quality prevention services can be used to detect diseases at an early stage, maintain the health of the population, and reduce healthcare costs. Precise and convenient measurement of the quality and delivery of prevention services, however, has not been adequately achieved. In this regard, primary care providers are the main workforce for the delivery of prevention services, and electronic health record (EHR) systems are the routine tools used for such delivery. In this paper, we review and summarize the currently used health indicators for measuring an individual’s health status. We then visit and interview four primary care providers, who use four different EHR/EMR systems, to check the availability and presentation of these health indicators in these systems. We find that there are very limited health indicators available in all four systems. A re-examination of the EHR standards, to include more health indicators to measure prevention, is needed.