What determines Self-Rated Health (SRH)? A cross-sectional study of SF-36 health domains in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort
BackgroundSelf-Rated Health (SRH) as assessed by a single-item measure is an independent predictor of health outcomes. However, it remains uncertain which elements of the subjective health experience it most strongly captures. In view of its ability to predict outcomes, elucidation of what determine...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979) 2011-09, Vol.65 (9), p.800-806 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 806 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 800 |
| container_title | Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979) |
| container_volume | 65 |
| creator | Mavaddat, Nahal Kinmonth, Ann Louise Sanderson, Simon Surtees, Paul Bingham, Sheila Khaw, Kay Tee |
| description | BackgroundSelf-Rated Health (SRH) as assessed by a single-item measure is an independent predictor of health outcomes. However, it remains uncertain which elements of the subjective health experience it most strongly captures. In view of its ability to predict outcomes, elucidation of what determines SRH is potentially important in the provision of services. This study aimed to determine the extent to which dimensions of physical, mental and social functioning are associated with SRH.MethodsWe studied 20 853 men and women aged 39–79 years from a population-based cohort study (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer study) who had completed an SRH (Short Form (SF)-1) measure and SF-36 questionnaire. SF-36 subscales were used to quantify dimensions of health best predicting poor or fair SRH within a logistic regression model.ResultsIn multivariate models adjusting for age, gender, social class, medical conditions and depression, all subscales of the SF-36 were independently associated with SRH, with the Physical Functioning subscale more strongly associated with poor or fair compared with excellent, very good or good health (OR 3.7 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.1)) than Mental Health (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5)) or Social Functioning subscales (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0)) for those below and above the median.ConclusionThis study confirms that physical functioning is more strongly associated with SRH than mental health and social functioning, even where the relative associations between each dimension and SRH may be expected to differ, such as in those with depression. It suggests that the way people take account of physical, mental and social dimensions of function when rating their health may be relatively stable across groups. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/jech.2009.090845 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_893338074</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>23050958</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>23050958</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b518t-ea641ade3f433a806e857329b882d2e9197465b55342b4d5429d8e71fdae9b353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0c9rFDEUB_BBFLtW716UQJEqMmt-TpKTlKV1C8squ2rFS8jMvGFmOjOpSRba_95ZZ23Bi6cE3ueFvPdNkpcEzwlh2YcWinpOMdZzrLHi4lEyI1zilEqmHiczTDhLMRY_jpJnIbR4vEqqnyZHFAtBCNezJFzVNqISIvi-GSCgLXRVurERSrQE28Uavd1ulu8-ojNUeBdCGqCIjRtsh0LclXfIVWh7kbIM1RMvXW-bIaBmQLEGdP7lcpGuna9cd40KVzsfnydPKtsFeHE4j5NvF-dfF8t09fnT5eJsleaCqJiCzTixJbCKM2YVzkAJyajOlaIlBU205JnIhWCc5rwUnOpSgSRVaUHnTLDj5HR698a7XzsI0fRNKKDr7ABuF4zSjDGFJR_lyT-ydTs_zhgMkVKP66RYjQpP6s8iPFTmxje99XeGYLPPw-zzMPs8zJTH2PL68PAu76G8b_gbwAjeHIANhe0qb4eiCQ-Oc6IzRkf3anJtiM4_1BkWWIv939Kp3oQIt_d1669NJpkUZv19Ya64XK3lZmV-jv795PO-_f8YvwFlzbab</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1779273208</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What determines Self-Rated Health (SRH)? A cross-sectional study of SF-36 health domains in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Mavaddat, Nahal ; Kinmonth, Ann Louise ; Sanderson, Simon ; Surtees, Paul ; Bingham, Sheila ; Khaw, Kay Tee</creator><creatorcontrib>Mavaddat, Nahal ; Kinmonth, Ann Louise ; Sanderson, Simon ; Surtees, Paul ; Bingham, Sheila ; Khaw, Kay Tee</creatorcontrib><description>BackgroundSelf-Rated Health (SRH) as assessed by a single-item measure is an independent predictor of health outcomes. However, it remains uncertain which elements of the subjective health experience it most strongly captures. In view of its ability to predict outcomes, elucidation of what determines SRH is potentially important in the provision of services. This study aimed to determine the extent to which dimensions of physical, mental and social functioning are associated with SRH.MethodsWe studied 20 853 men and women aged 39–79 years from a population-based cohort study (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer study) who had completed an SRH (Short Form (SF)-1) measure and SF-36 questionnaire. SF-36 subscales were used to quantify dimensions of health best predicting poor or fair SRH within a logistic regression model.ResultsIn multivariate models adjusting for age, gender, social class, medical conditions and depression, all subscales of the SF-36 were independently associated with SRH, with the Physical Functioning subscale more strongly associated with poor or fair compared with excellent, very good or good health (OR 3.7 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.1)) than Mental Health (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5)) or Social Functioning subscales (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0)) for those below and above the median.ConclusionThis study confirms that physical functioning is more strongly associated with SRH than mental health and social functioning, even where the relative associations between each dimension and SRH may be expected to differ, such as in those with depression. It suggests that the way people take account of physical, mental and social dimensions of function when rating their health may be relatively stable across groups.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0143-005X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1470-2738</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jech.2009.090845</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20551149</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JECHDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Activities of Daily Living - psychology ; Adult ; Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cancer ; Cognitive models ; Cohort Studies ; Community health ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Depressive disorders ; Disease ; Disease models ; Female ; functional status ; General aspects ; Health Status ; Health Surveys ; Humans ; Illnesses ; Interpersonal Relations ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Medical conditions ; Medical sciences ; Men ; Mental depression ; Mental Health ; Middle Aged ; Miscellaneous ; Mortality ; Physical Fitness - psychology ; Population ; Public health ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Questionnaires ; Research report ; Self Report ; self-rated health ; SF-36 ; Social Class ; Studies ; subjective health ; United Kingdom ; Vitality</subject><ispartof>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979), 2011-09, Vol.65 (9), p.800-806</ispartof><rights>2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>2011 BMJ Publishing Group</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright: 2011 (c) 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b518t-ea641ade3f433a806e857329b882d2e9197465b55342b4d5429d8e71fdae9b353</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jech.bmj.com/content/65/9/800.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jech.bmj.com/content/65/9/800.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,780,784,803,3196,23571,27924,27925,58017,58250,77600,77631</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24419632$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551149$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mavaddat, Nahal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kinmonth, Ann Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanderson, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Surtees, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bingham, Sheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khaw, Kay Tee</creatorcontrib><title>What determines Self-Rated Health (SRH)? A cross-sectional study of SF-36 health domains in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort</title><title>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</title><addtitle>J Epidemiol Community Health</addtitle><description>BackgroundSelf-Rated Health (SRH) as assessed by a single-item measure is an independent predictor of health outcomes. However, it remains uncertain which elements of the subjective health experience it most strongly captures. In view of its ability to predict outcomes, elucidation of what determines SRH is potentially important in the provision of services. This study aimed to determine the extent to which dimensions of physical, mental and social functioning are associated with SRH.MethodsWe studied 20 853 men and women aged 39–79 years from a population-based cohort study (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer study) who had completed an SRH (Short Form (SF)-1) measure and SF-36 questionnaire. SF-36 subscales were used to quantify dimensions of health best predicting poor or fair SRH within a logistic regression model.ResultsIn multivariate models adjusting for age, gender, social class, medical conditions and depression, all subscales of the SF-36 were independently associated with SRH, with the Physical Functioning subscale more strongly associated with poor or fair compared with excellent, very good or good health (OR 3.7 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.1)) than Mental Health (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5)) or Social Functioning subscales (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0)) for those below and above the median.ConclusionThis study confirms that physical functioning is more strongly associated with SRH than mental health and social functioning, even where the relative associations between each dimension and SRH may be expected to differ, such as in those with depression. It suggests that the way people take account of physical, mental and social dimensions of function when rating their health may be relatively stable across groups.</description><subject>Activities of Daily Living - psychology</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cognitive models</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Community health</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Depressive disorders</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Disease models</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>functional status</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Health Status</subject><subject>Health Surveys</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>Interpersonal Relations</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical conditions</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Men</subject><subject>Mental depression</subject><subject>Mental Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Physical Fitness - psychology</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Research report</subject><subject>Self Report</subject><subject>self-rated health</subject><subject>SF-36</subject><subject>Social Class</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>subjective health</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Vitality</subject><issn>0143-005X</issn><issn>1470-2738</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0c9rFDEUB_BBFLtW716UQJEqMmt-TpKTlKV1C8squ2rFS8jMvGFmOjOpSRba_95ZZ23Bi6cE3ueFvPdNkpcEzwlh2YcWinpOMdZzrLHi4lEyI1zilEqmHiczTDhLMRY_jpJnIbR4vEqqnyZHFAtBCNezJFzVNqISIvi-GSCgLXRVurERSrQE28Uavd1ulu8-ojNUeBdCGqCIjRtsh0LclXfIVWh7kbIM1RMvXW-bIaBmQLEGdP7lcpGuna9cd40KVzsfnydPKtsFeHE4j5NvF-dfF8t09fnT5eJsleaCqJiCzTixJbCKM2YVzkAJyajOlaIlBU205JnIhWCc5rwUnOpSgSRVaUHnTLDj5HR698a7XzsI0fRNKKDr7ABuF4zSjDGFJR_lyT-ydTs_zhgMkVKP66RYjQpP6s8iPFTmxje99XeGYLPPw-zzMPs8zJTH2PL68PAu76G8b_gbwAjeHIANhe0qb4eiCQ-Oc6IzRkf3anJtiM4_1BkWWIv939Kp3oQIt_d1669NJpkUZv19Ya64XK3lZmV-jv795PO-_f8YvwFlzbab</recordid><startdate>20110901</startdate><enddate>20110901</enddate><creator>Mavaddat, Nahal</creator><creator>Kinmonth, Ann Louise</creator><creator>Sanderson, Simon</creator><creator>Surtees, Paul</creator><creator>Bingham, Sheila</creator><creator>Khaw, Kay Tee</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110901</creationdate><title>What determines Self-Rated Health (SRH)? A cross-sectional study of SF-36 health domains in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort</title><author>Mavaddat, Nahal ; Kinmonth, Ann Louise ; Sanderson, Simon ; Surtees, Paul ; Bingham, Sheila ; Khaw, Kay Tee</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b518t-ea641ade3f433a806e857329b882d2e9197465b55342b4d5429d8e71fdae9b353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Activities of Daily Living - psychology</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cognitive models</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Community health</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Depressive disorders</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Disease models</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>functional status</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Health Status</topic><topic>Health Surveys</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>Interpersonal Relations</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical conditions</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Men</topic><topic>Mental depression</topic><topic>Mental Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Physical Fitness - psychology</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Research report</topic><topic>Self Report</topic><topic>self-rated health</topic><topic>SF-36</topic><topic>Social Class</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>subjective health</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Vitality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mavaddat, Nahal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kinmonth, Ann Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanderson, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Surtees, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bingham, Sheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khaw, Kay Tee</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mavaddat, Nahal</au><au>Kinmonth, Ann Louise</au><au>Sanderson, Simon</au><au>Surtees, Paul</au><au>Bingham, Sheila</au><au>Khaw, Kay Tee</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What determines Self-Rated Health (SRH)? A cross-sectional study of SF-36 health domains in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort</atitle><jtitle>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</jtitle><addtitle>J Epidemiol Community Health</addtitle><date>2011-09-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>800</spage><epage>806</epage><pages>800-806</pages><issn>0143-005X</issn><eissn>1470-2738</eissn><coden>JECHDR</coden><abstract>BackgroundSelf-Rated Health (SRH) as assessed by a single-item measure is an independent predictor of health outcomes. However, it remains uncertain which elements of the subjective health experience it most strongly captures. In view of its ability to predict outcomes, elucidation of what determines SRH is potentially important in the provision of services. This study aimed to determine the extent to which dimensions of physical, mental and social functioning are associated with SRH.MethodsWe studied 20 853 men and women aged 39–79 years from a population-based cohort study (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer study) who had completed an SRH (Short Form (SF)-1) measure and SF-36 questionnaire. SF-36 subscales were used to quantify dimensions of health best predicting poor or fair SRH within a logistic regression model.ResultsIn multivariate models adjusting for age, gender, social class, medical conditions and depression, all subscales of the SF-36 were independently associated with SRH, with the Physical Functioning subscale more strongly associated with poor or fair compared with excellent, very good or good health (OR 3.7 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.1)) than Mental Health (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5)) or Social Functioning subscales (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0)) for those below and above the median.ConclusionThis study confirms that physical functioning is more strongly associated with SRH than mental health and social functioning, even where the relative associations between each dimension and SRH may be expected to differ, such as in those with depression. It suggests that the way people take account of physical, mental and social dimensions of function when rating their health may be relatively stable across groups.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>20551149</pmid><doi>10.1136/jech.2009.090845</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0143-005X |
| ispartof | Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979), 2011-09, Vol.65 (9), p.800-806 |
| issn | 0143-005X 1470-2738 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_893338074 |
| source | MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Activities of Daily Living - psychology Adult Aged Biological and medical sciences Cancer Cognitive models Cohort Studies Community health Cross-Sectional Studies Depressive disorders Disease Disease models Female functional status General aspects Health Status Health Surveys Humans Illnesses Interpersonal Relations Logistic Models Male Medical conditions Medical sciences Men Mental depression Mental Health Middle Aged Miscellaneous Mortality Physical Fitness - psychology Population Public health Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Questionnaires Research report Self Report self-rated health SF-36 Social Class Studies subjective health United Kingdom Vitality |
| title | What determines Self-Rated Health (SRH)? A cross-sectional study of SF-36 health domains in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T18%3A49%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20determines%20Self-Rated%20Health%20(SRH)?%20A%20cross-sectional%20study%20of%20SF-36%20health%20domains%20in%20the%20EPIC-Norfolk%20cohort&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20epidemiology%20and%20community%20health%20(1979)&rft.au=Mavaddat,%20Nahal&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=800&rft.epage=806&rft.pages=800-806&rft.issn=0143-005X&rft.eissn=1470-2738&rft.coden=JECHDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jech.2009.090845&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E23050958%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1779273208&rft_id=info:pmid/20551149&rft_jstor_id=23050958&rfr_iscdi=true |