ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Development and content validation of a health assessment item bank for regional health big data: a sequential mixed-methods approach.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundHealth assessment instruments are essential for individual health monitoring, yet most existing tools rely on periodic surveys and lack the capacity to integrate large-scale digital health data. With the increasing availability of regional health big data, there is a need to establish comprehensive indicator resources that can inform the development of validated instruments tailored to local health contexts. This study aimed to develop and validate a health assessment item bank based on regional health big data, providing a structured foundation for subsequent instrument development.
methodsA sequential mixed-methods design was adopted. First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts from diverse health-related disciplines to identify key health categories and subcategories. A preliminary conceptual framework was produced through a directed qualitative content analysis process. Second, data elements were extracted from the national Regional Health Information Platform Interaction Standard (WS/T 790) of China and related standards. These data elements were vectorized using a Chinese pre-trained RoBERTa model, clustered with the DBSCAN algorithm, and matched to the conceptual framework through cosine similarity. Finally, experts reviewed and rated the semantic matching results by scoring the matching relevance from 1 to 5, agreement among experts were evaluated with the Fleiss' Kappa analysis, and consensus discussions were conducted to refine the item pool and ensure content validity.
resultsThe resulting item bank comprised 430 indicators distributed across five main categories and 17 subcategories. The main categories are Physiological health, Psychological health, Health behaviors, Social health, and Environment and healthcare services. Expert review yielded high agreement (mean score = 4.95/5.00; Fleiss' Kappa = 0.626), supporting the adequacy of content validity. The Social support and Health service subcategories contained no mapped indicator, highlighting areas requiring integration of additional data sources.
conclusionsThis study established a comprehensive and validated item bank for health assessment based on regional health big data, offering a structured foundation for future development, calibration, and psychometric testing of health assessment instruments. This work contributes to advancing data-driven, context-specific approaches for monitoring health at the individual level.
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.