IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0330014.html

Stakeholder and end-user perspectives to refine the Context-sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ) to measure broad health

Author

Listed:
  • Mirte Boelens
  • Cheryl Roumen
  • Esther J Bloemen-van Gurp
  • John Dierx
  • Lenny Nahar-van Venrooij
  • Tim van Zutphen
  • Pien MR Christiaanse
  • Jaron Schnitzer
  • M Elske van den Akker-van Marle
  • Miriam JJ de Kleijn
  • Marja van Vliet
  • Jessica C Kiefte-de Jong
  • Marieke D Spreeuwenberg

Abstract

Introduction: Broad health concepts are increasingly embedded in healthcare and other domains. Therefore, in a previous study, we developed and validated the Context-Sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ). The CPHQ is based on Positive Health, the Capability Approach and on perspectives of stakeholders and end-users, including those with a lower socioeconomic position (SEP) with the aim to validly measure broad health. Stakeholders and end-users were involved in the development process. However, professionals working in healthcare, welfare or policy domain were not sufficiently involved, while their perspective on how to measure broad health is needed to support broader applicability and acceptability. Objective: We aimed to refine the 32-item CPHQ for cross-domain use through focus group discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders across healthcare, welfare and policy domains, researchers, as well as patients and citizens, including those from a lower SEP, expert review and a member check. Methods: We conducted nine (FGDs) and one interview with stakeholders from healthcare, welfare, and policy domains, research, patients and (lower SEP) citizens (n = 76). An adapted COMET method analysis and qualitative analysis were used, followed by a member check to validate the changes. Results: Items were omitted, merged or added, leading to a refined CPHQ (28 items). Main themes guiding edits were 1) the importance of avoiding normative phrasing and including subjectively interpretable items, 2) prioritization of items reflecting aspects of experienced health (e.g., “I feel happy” or “I feel healthy”), 3) relevance of functionings. At the same time, views diverged on the inclusion and wording of items related to exclusion, political representation and sense of belonging. These items were subsequently discussed by the core group and evaluated using the predefined decision rules and qualitative feedback. Conclusion: The CPHQ refinement involved a wide range of stakeholders, including end-users. This led to a 28-item CPHQ to measure broad health. Future research in different populations and settings is needed to validate and possibly shorten the refined CPHQ.

Suggested Citation

  • Mirte Boelens & Cheryl Roumen & Esther J Bloemen-van Gurp & John Dierx & Lenny Nahar-van Venrooij & Tim van Zutphen & Pien MR Christiaanse & Jaron Schnitzer & M Elske van den Akker-van Marle & Miriam , 2026. "Stakeholder and end-user perspectives to refine the Context-sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ) to measure broad health," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0330014
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330014
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330014&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0330014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0330014. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.