IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v27y1988i3p269-275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of two survey measures of health status

Author

Listed:
  • Leavey, Ralph
  • Wilkin, David

Abstract

Health service planning requires information on levels of health and illness in the population. Surveys, such as the British General Household Survey (GHS) rely on self-reports of health, illness and restriction, but interpretation of results is problematic. Multi-item measures such as the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) tap different aspects of health and allow respondents less freedom to define health and illness. In a survey of 1962 adults, health questions from the GHS and the NHP were used, and the results compared. Responses to GHS questions were associated with NHP scores, but the strength of the associations between the four GHS questions and the six NHP items varied considerably. Reporting a recent restriction was only weakly associated with NHP scores. Associations between GHS questions and NHP scores were weakest for the NHP items measuring emotional reactions, sleep and feelings of social isolation. Reporting good health or no illness in response to GHS questions was no guarantee that respondents experienced no health problems. Those who use health data from the GHS, NHP or similar surveys should look closely at whether such data provide appropriate information for their purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Leavey, Ralph & Wilkin, David, 1988. "A comparison of two survey measures of health status," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 269-275, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:27:y:1988:i:3:p:269-275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(88)90131-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:27:y:1988:i:3:p:269-275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.