ArticleBMC public health2026
Reasons behind individuals' self-ratings of health: an analysis of responses to an open-ended survey question.
Article in BMC public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-rated health (SRH) is one of the most widely used indicators in population health research, yet the meanings respondents attach to this global item remain insufficiently understood. This study examines how individuals justify their SRH assessments and whether the domains invoked vary systematically by health status and sociodemographic position. The aim was to clarify what respondents mean when they rate their health and to identify patterns in the salience of bodily, psychological, social, and lifestyle-related aspects of health.
methodsWe used a mixed-methods design based on representative survey data that combined a standard SRH item with an open-ended follow-up question asking respondents to explain their rating in their own words. Open responses were coded into thematic health domains and analyzed quantitatively across subgroups defined by age, gender, income, and health status.
resultsSRH emerged as a domain-weighted judgment. Acute bodily complaints and chronic conditions were the most common justifications overall, particularly among respondents in poorer health. In contrast, "very good" health ratings were more often linked to emotional well-being, social relations, and broader functioning. Older respondents referred more frequently to chronic disease burden and functional capacity, whereas younger respondents more often emphasized acute symptoms and social relations. Women gave greater weight to affective states and caregiving responsibilities. Higher-income respondents referred less to chronic disease and more to emotional well-being than lower-income respondents.
conclusionsSRH should be interpreted neither as a purely biomedical indicator nor as a uniformly integrated biopsychosocial assessment. Its meaning is context-dependent and shaped by respondents' health status, social roles, and socioeconomic position. This has implications for the interpretation and comparability of SRH across population groups.
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.