Self-rated health from epidemiology to patient encounter

Abstract: Background: In epidemiology self-rated health is often measured as people’s subjective answer to a question “How is your health in general?” or “How is your general health compared to persons of your own age?”. The answers have a strong association with significant medical outcomes such as death, diabetes, coronary heart disease, functional ability and depression, medical diagnoses and how these are perceived. The overarching aim of this thesis was to investigate if and how a use of the epidemiologists’ tool of self-rated health might aid GPs in practising medicine with a holistic perspective, contextually sensitive and taking into account the patients’ medical and personal histories.Methods: In Paper I, I used semantics to elucidate the meaning of self-rated health. Data came from the Northern Sweden Monica Project 1990–1999. In Paper II, with data from the MONICA Project in 1999–2009, I used ordinal regression to investigate associations between self-rated health, medical factors, psychosocial factors and emotions. In Paper III, I used data from the Västerbotten Intervention Programme 1990–2004 in Cox regression analyses to investigate the relationship between self-rated health and standard risk factors for the outcome myocardial infarction. Paper IV is a qualitative study from seven primary care health centres. Actual consultations were audio-recorded and analysed with systematic text condensation, measuring apportionment of speaking time and by taking into account GPs’ assessments of using a question about comparative self-rated health in a consultation.Results: In Paper I, I found “health” in questionnaires being understood not through definitions of health but through associations of the word “health” with “sense relations”, that are important connotations of the word “health”. Age-comparative self-rated health was semantically clearer as it pointed towards comparison with a reference group. In Paper II, emotions of anxiety or depression and discontent with personal economy were associated with lower self-rated health and were common in the population. Paper III established self-rated health as an independent risk factor for myocardial infarction when adjusted for standard risk factors. In the qualitative Paper IV, self-rated health affected consultations, increased patients’ speaking time in relation to doctors’ when discussing self-rated health and elicited reactions, sometimes with strong language. Reflections ensued that could give vivid descriptions of function, life circumstances and resources or obstacles in handling symptoms and illnesses.Conclusion: Comparative self-rated health constitutes a feasible tool in general practice, particularly in taking account of patients’ medical and personal histories. It is holistic, sensitive to psychosocial factors. It is useful to solicit information on risk and the patient’s feelings related to an illness/disease, and to encourage the patient’s active reflection on functional abilities, life situation, health and health strategies. However, self-ratings are not to be seen as a standard procedure in all consultations.