SynthesisArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026
Monitoring and evaluation instruments of individual health in community settings: a scoping review.
Synthesis in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and content validation of a health assessment item bank for regional health big data: a sequential mixed-methods approach.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividual health monitoring and evaluation instruments help reflect specific health status, enhance people’s acceptance and adherence to treatments, and reduce disease burdens. However, measurement instruments for individual health have not been adequately explored in community settings. This study is to scope the existing evidence with two aims: (1) to identify the individual health measurement instruments for the general population, (2) to synthesize thematic categories that are used to construct the instruments and the way that these instruments are combined in actual usage.
methodsThis scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and adhered to the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CNKI, and WanFang) were searched from their inception to 15 November 2025. Studies were included if they involved adults from the general population, applied individual health monitoring or evaluation instruments in community or home-based settings, and were peer-reviewed primary or secondary research published in English or Chinese. Studies targeting disease-specific populations or clinical therapeutic interventions were excluded. A double screening process of titles, abstracts, and full text was applied.
resultsThe search initially identified 51,269 records, of which 257 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 310 individual health measurement instruments. Among these instruments, 53 were related to Health / Quality of Life, 158 focused on Physical Health, 47 on Mental Health, 21 on Health Behaviors, 16 on Healthcare Environment, and 15 on Social Health. The instruments were further categorized as Generic instruments, Mixed instruments, Self-developed instruments, and Specific Indicators, according to how they were used in the studies to generate the final health outcomes.
conclusionsThis scoping review maps individual-level health measurement instruments used in community settings, synthesizing six health domains and multiple instrument types. These findings highlight priorities for developing more balanced and policy-relevant systems for individual health monitoring. A shift from generic to mixed instruments is found, with physical indicators dominating while mental, behavioral, environmental, and social dimensions remain underrepresented. Emerging digital data offer opportunities for more continuous assessment, but challenges in interoperability, privacy, and equity need to be addressed before further progress can be made.
trial registration10.17605/OSF.IO/4PS5C (OSF), 4 October 2023.
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.