Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Self-rated health in general practice: a plea for subjectivity

Göran Waller
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (632): 110-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683833
Göran Waller
Department of Clinical Medicine and Public Health, Unit of Family Medicine at Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

I think many GPs with some experience recognise that a major problem in medical practice is not always the medical problem in itself. It is the subjective side of the matter, the patient’s ideas, and possibilities of handling the situation of illness, disease, and functional impairment that are the challenges. None of this was focused on in my medical training and continuous medical education. However, there is now a solid mass of research emphasising the importance of the patient’s subjective side of the matter. Paying attention to the patient’s own assessment of health is important not only as a sign of interest and empathy; it can also be crucial in assessing prognosis, guide consultations to important questions, and guide efforts in handling diseases. All these are lessons learned from research on self-rated health. GPs can confidently use and adopt this research in clinical encounters and clinical research.

WHY?

Outcomes

Outcomes such as mortality, cardiovascular disease, stroke, lung disease, arthritis, functional impairment, depression, and developing diabetes type 2 and its prognosis are associated to self-rated health.1–3

Better than doctors’ ratings

Self-rated health is a better predictor of future health (good health assessed as no symptoms of disease or minimal impairment if symptoms present) than doctors’ ratings.4 It also adds information beyond a doctor’s ordinary clinical evaluation.1,5

Comprehensive

There are innumerable factors affecting patients’ health. Self-rated health is a comprehensive way to assess the patient’s situation.1 Self-rated health can guide doctors and their patients in the search for contributing causes of bad health. Are there disease problems, psychological illness, anxiety, bad economy, violence at home, or other causes at hand? Recently, in an article in the BJGP, self-rated health was proposed as an instrument in screening for cardiovascular risk factors and undiagnosed comorbidities.6

Bringing health as patients see it into focus

There are numerous recommendations for doctors to inform patients on a healthy lifestyle. The perspective is top down. Many doctors feel uncomfortable treating patients as people of little knowledge and acting as high priests of health. Self-rated health can change the perspective, starting with the patient’s own health situation. This starting point was proposed by GP Petre Jones and colleagues in their article ‘Coaching for health.’7 However, they proposed a more ambitious psychological approach not feasible in a GP surgery. Discussing self-rated health could be a way to coach for health within an ordinary GP consultation. This can be worthwhile as ‘patients have a remarkable potential to help themselves.’7 The aim could be to improve health or to maintain health even though there are medical diseases at hand.8 As one of my patients put it: ‘They tell me you should do this or that, eat this and not that, exercise, quit smoking, and blah blah blah. It’s all a waste on me. It is not the problem. It’s the spark missing.’

For this patient, coaching for health meant focusing on ‘the spark.’

Sensitive to social determinants of health

Self-rated health is sensitive to social determinants of health such as education, household wealth, or living conditions.1 A doctor cannot use self-rated health and remain unaware of social determinants of health.

DOUBTS ON SUBJECTIVE HEALTH PERSPECTIVES

But is subjective health a valid perspective for doctors trained in diagnosing and treating disease?

Yes it is. It is beyond any doubt that subjective health matters. It makes a difference in the lives of our patients, their longevity, and the outcome of their diseases.1 Thus, it must be a matter also for the patients’ doctors. David Misselbrook recently put this insight into writing, ‘Let’s help people to be well, not just tell them they are sick.’9

Is subjective health a reliable measure?

Yes it is. Self-rated health is a stable self-concept of health, formed in adolescence.10

It is impossible to know what self-rated health measures

This is indeed true. However, our patients do not live in a laboratory environment where there is a clear link between cause and effect. They live in a web of causes, interactions, and effect modifiers. The strength of self-rated health is its ability to sum up the net effect of multiple causes.

Lack of subjective health is not a diagnosis

Yet, for some patients this seems to be a greater problem than the diagnoses put on them by doctors. When this is the case it seems more appropriate to focus on subjective health rather than disease. In some instances this focus could even lead to new ways of assisting the patient. Far too often we come to an end in our medical treatment options.

Good health has little to do with doctors

GP Daniel Edgcumbe reminds us of the importance of the political arena on health issues.11 Health is not an end in itself. It is a means to accomplish the things you want in life. A certain amount of health and self-confidence is certainly needed if you are to act on the political arena and in society. Doctors can liberate patients and empower them to health rather than oppressing them with diagnosis, risk factors, and seeing problems. Focusing on self-rated health can help to empower patients.8

TIME TO IMPLEMENT

In practice

Questions of self-rated health are often formulated ‘How would you assess your general state of health?’ with answers ranging in five steps from excellent to poor. This type of question is the one most often used in epidemiological research. A more dialogue-enhancing question, semantically clearer, is the age-comparative variant: ‘How is your health compared to people of your age? Better, about the same or worse?’12 In my experience this question often elicits an immediate reaction and then a vocal reasoning by the patients assessing their health in one way or another. This reasoning can be used by the patient and doctor together. How it is used is of course dependent on the context in the actual consultation. There are definitely consultations where it is inappropriate to raise the question. Asking about self-rated health is more of an option available when needed for understanding the patient or help the patient to reflect on their own situation.

In research

There is a biological basis that ties self-rated health to hardcore endpoints, such as death or cardiovascular disease. There is an association between elevated levels of inflammatory markers and poor self-rated health.13 The association between self-rated health and inflammation was not accounted for by objective health diagnoses, medication use, or health behaviours. Thus, self-rated health provides unique information regarding inflammatory status above and beyond traditional objective health indicators.13 Allostatic load, a combined measure of biological dysregulation is related to self-rated health. Self-rated health in adolescence predicted allostatic load in young adulthood.10 The researchers argue that self-rated health formed early in life may be an important determinant for long-term health closely tied to physiological changes in the body. Further research on the relation between physiological changes and self-rated health seems a promising path for understanding self-rated health and its relation to outcomes and function. An even more pertinent question is whether interventions aimed at improving self-rated health also can improve patient-related outcomes.

SUMMARY

GPs meet patients and the patient’s assessment of their own health. The doctor’s job is to understand and deal with this assessment. Is there a disease that can be treated or alleviated? Is there something else that the patient or doctor can do? Can something be done to maintain and strengthen a good subjective health? To disregard the patient’s subjective view of health is equal to not using the most valuable piece of information there is. In some consultations, when appropriate, a question of self-rated health can be posed. There is a massive scientific base for the usefulness of self-rated health.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2015

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jylhä M
    (2009) What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Soc Sci Med 69(3):307–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    1. Latham K,
    2. Peek CW
    (2013) Self-rated health and morbidity onset among late midlife U.S. adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 68(1):107–116.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Wennberg P,
    2. Rolandsson O,
    3. Jerdén L,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Self-rated health and mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus: prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2(1):e000760.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Maddox GL,
    2. Douglass EB
    (1973) Self-assessment of health: a longitudinal study of elderly subjects. J Health Soc Behav 14(1):87–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Undén AL,
    2. Elofsson S
    (2001) Health from the patient’s point of view. How does it relate to the physician’s judgement? Fam Pract 18(2):174–180.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Korhonen PE,
    2. Kautiainen H,
    3. Mäntyselkä P
    (2014) Screening for cardiovascular risk factors and self-rated health in a community setting: a cross-sectional study in Finland. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp14X681769.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Jones P,
    2. McDowell A,
    3. Viney R
    (2013) Coaching for health: holding the curtains so patients can change. Br J Gen Pract 63(611):318–319.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Malterud K,
    2. Hollnagel H
    (2004) Positive self-assessed general health in patients with medical problems. A qualitative study from general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care 22(1):11–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Misselbrook D
    (2014) W is for Wellbeing and the WHO definition of health. Br J Gen Pract 64(628):582.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Vie TL,
    2. Hufthammer KO,
    3. Holmen TL,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Is self-rated health a stable and predictive factor for allostatic load in early adulthood? Findings from the Nord Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT). Soc Sci Med 117:1–9.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Edgcumbe D
    (2012) Good health has little to do with doctors, Mr Lansley. Br J Gen Pract 62(595):95.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Waller G,
    2. Thalén P,
    3. Janlert U,
    4. et al.
    (2012) A cross-sectional and semantic investigation of self-rated health in the northern Sweden MONICA-study. BMC Med Res Methodol 12(1):154.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Christian LM,
    2. Glaser R,
    3. Porter K,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Poorer self-rated health is associated with elevated inflammatory markers among older adults. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36(10):1495–1504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 65 (632)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 65, Issue 632
March 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Self-rated health in general practice: a plea for subjectivity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Self-rated health in general practice: a plea for subjectivity
Göran Waller
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (632): 110-111. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X683833

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Self-rated health in general practice: a plea for subjectivity
Göran Waller
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (632): 110-111. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X683833
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • WHY?
    • DOUBTS ON SUBJECTIVE HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
    • TIME TO IMPLEMENT
    • SUMMARY
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Vitamin D and COVID-19 in older age: evidence versus expectations
  • Realising the potential of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies for older adults
  • Time to reshape our delivery of primary care to vulnerable older adults in social housing?
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242