ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Conceptualisation of health among young people: a protocol for systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-reported health is a widely used health indicator in surveys and questionnaires. The measure gained attention when research identified its association with mortality in the 1970s and 1980s. The measure is also associated with morbidity and other health outcomes such as the utilisation of health services. Self-reported health is a particularly useful measure for young people because this age group is generally clinically healthy. However, it is known that many chronic conditions have long latency periods that are initiated early in life. Because of its predictive nature, self-reported health can be used to estimate young people's current and future health. Despite its widespread use, however, self-reported health remains a poorly understood concept. This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that will identify and synthesise qualitative studies that investigate the factors that are considered by young people when they assess their health, and when they talk about health overall.
methodsThe population of the review is young people aged 10-24 years, with or without health conditions. We will search the databases of MEDLINE (Ovid®), PsycINFO (APA PsycNet), ProQuest Sociology Collection, and Web of Science Core Collection™. We will also utilise techniques of reference checking and forward citation searching, as this strategy has been shown to result in a higher number of high-quality studies in social science systematic reviews. Google Scholar and Google Search were used during preliminary searches; Google Scholar will be utilised for forward citation searching. We will include studies written in English, German, or Finnish; there will be no lower date limit. One reviewer will screen all citations. A second reviewer will independently screen a sample of 20% of the abstracts. Data will be extracted by one researcher, two other researchers will independently review all data extracted, and quality appraisal will be completed by the first reviewer. We will utilise the Quality Framework for the appraisal of included articles and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will improve the understanding of the factors that are considered during the self-assessments of health; this will improve the interpretation of the results of quantitative research. Also, an improved understanding of the conceptualisation of health will inform the development of health policies and interventions that support young people's health. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022367519.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.