Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38162609›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Do people with different sociodemographic backgrounds value their health differently? Evaluating the role of positional objectivity.

Gaurav Jyani, Shankar Prinja, Aarti Goyal, Basant Garg, Manmeet Kaur, Sandeep Grover

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Valuation of the EQ-5D-3L in Jordan.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. The Evolution of Principles of Economics: A Comprehensive Journey Through Health Economics for Public Health Practitioners and Researchers.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gaurav JyaniDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Shankar PrinjaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Aarti GoyalDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Basant GargNational Health Authority, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Manmeet KaurDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Sandeep GroverDepartment of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INGovernment of India · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The fundamental disconnect between the actual and the perceived health of an individual raises considerable skepticism on the self-reported health data as it may be confounded by an individual's socio-economic status. In this light, the present study aims to assess if people with different sociodemographic backgrounds value their health differently. Methods: The health-state valuation using time-trade off was performed in a cross-sectional survey among a representative sample of 2,311 adults from India. Individuals were selected using a multistage stratified random sampling from five Indian states to elicit their present health-state, and to perform the health-state valuation exercise using computer assisted personal interviewing. A single block of standardized health-states was valued by multiple individuals, each belonging to different socio-demographic group. The difference in the valuation of health was assessed using bivariate analysis. The impact of different sociodemographic factors on the health-state valuation was evaluated using Tobit regression model. Results: Differences in the valuation of health were observed among different groups of age, religion, family type, state of residence, substance abuse, presence of ailments at the time of valuation, and number of dependent members in the household. Even after controlling for the severity of the administered health states, factors having a significant association with the valuation of health are age, religion, state of residence, substance abuse, family type, number of dependent members in the household, and presence of chronic or both acute and chronic ailments. Younger individuals place a higher value to their health as compared to their older counterparts. As compared to a healthy individual, a person with ailments rates the same health-state as worse. Conclusion: Inequalities in self-reported ill-health cannot be attributed to positional objectivity; age, religion, state of residence, substance abuse, family type, dependents, and ailments impact individual health valuation.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSubstance-Related DisordersAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHealth StatusHumansSelf Reportequityhealth inequityhealth state preferencepositional objectivitysociodemographic factorssocio-economic statustime-trade offvaluation of health

Identifiers

PMID38162609
PMCPMC10756676
OpenAlexW4389683660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.