What lies behind the subjective evaluation of health status?
The evaluation of health or subjective health (SH) is considered a legitimate indicator of overall health status, providing a valid, reliable and cost-effective means of health assessment. This study looks at factors reported by respondents as influencing their SH, it analyzes to which extent people compare themselves with others when evaluating their health, and examines the difference between people with optimal or sub-optimal SH. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 383 Israeli residents. Three models for judging health status were identified: the biomedical or disease oriented, the emotional or "general feeling", and the functional-related model. The reported influence of some factors for the evaluation of health changed by age and by level of subjective health. Respondents with sub-optimal health reported tiredness and pain as more influential. Most interviewees spontaneously reported comparing their health to reference groups. Age and level of subjective health were associated with the way people compare their health to others. The young reporting sub-optimal health did not compare themselves to people their age, but a high percentage of the old did so. Among those with excellent health, the young rather than the old were more likely to compare themselves to people their age. These findings imply that each individual tries to find ways to evaluate his/her health in a more positive light. When old and not healthy they tend to compare themselves to friends or people their age, but if young and not healthy they do not perform the comparison so as not to feel worse. Understanding how people evaluate their health can contribute to the conceptual development of subjective health.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 8 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:8:p:1669-1676. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.