ArticlePloS one2026
The 22-item Positive Health questionnaire (PH22) is reliable and applicable among different (Dutch) hospital populations: A test-retest study design.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundThere is a growing adoption in (healthcare) organizations of Positive Health, a new theoretical concept of health moving from a disease-oriented perspective toward a more holistic understanding of health. Alongside this, there is a growing need to make the impact of working according to this concept measurable. The validated 22-item Positive Health questionnaire (PH22) has good potential for this purpose. However, information about the test-retest reliability of the PH22 is lacking. Also, its performance in patient populations is unknown.
objectivesIn addition to the previous validation study in a general population, this study aimed, in line with international guidelines, to evaluate the (test-retest) reliability of the PH22, and its performance among two different hospital populations. Additionally, its discriminative ability was examined by assessing PH22 scores across subgroups defined by educational level and level of (chronic) disease.
methodsParticipants were recruited from a general hospital population and a lifestyle outpatient population with overweight. Using a test-retest design, the measurement properties: internal consistency, agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), measurement error (ME), smallest detectable change (SDC)) and model fit indices were examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFI, RMSEA, SRMR).
resultsIncluded were 360 and 139 patients, respectively. Of whom 247 and 121 also completed the retest. Internal consistency of the PH22 was good, except for the dimension Future perspective (Cronbach's α < 0.7). Agreement was good (ICC > 0.7), except for the dimension Future perspective among the general hospital population (ICC = 0.63, ME = 2.8 (7.3%), SDC = 7.8 (26%)). Overall, the PH22 model fit was acceptable, but for the Lifestyle outpatient population only the RSMEA index was sufficient. As expected on forehand, the PH22 scores were higher among those higher educated and lower for those with a chronic disease or higher healthcare use.
conclusionThe PH22 appears to be a reliable and applicable instrument for measuring Positive Health among general hospital populations. Caution should be taken among more specific (patients) groups, especially for the dimension Future perspective. Future research should focus on the clinical relevance and interpretation of different PH22 scores.
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.