↓ Skip to main content

How participants report their health status: cognitive interviews of self-rated health across race/ethnicity, gender, age, and educational attainment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How participants report their health status: cognitive interviews of self-rated health across race/ethnicity, gender, age, and educational attainment
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4761-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Garbarski, Jennifer Dykema, Kenneth D. Croes, Dorothy F. Edwards

Abstract

Self-rated health (SRH) is widely used to measure subjective health. Yet it is unclear what underlies health ratings, with implications for understanding the validity of SRH overall and across sociodemographic characteristics. We analyze participants' explanations of how they formulated their SRH answer in addition to which health factors they considered and examine group differences in these processes. Cognitive interviews were conducted with 64 participants in a convenience quota sample crossing dimensions of race/ethnicity (white, Latino, black, American Indian), gender, age, and education. Participants rated their health then described their thoughts when answering SRH. We coded participants' answers in an inductive, iterative, and systematic process from interview transcripts, developing analytic categories (i.e., themes) and subdimensions within. We examined whether the presence of each dimension of an analytic category varied across sociodemographic groups. Our qualitative analysis led to the identification and classification of various subdimensions of the following analytic categories: types of health factors mentioned, valence of health factors, temporality of health factors, conditional health statements, and descriptions and definitions of health. We found differences across groups in some types of health factors mentioned-corresponding, conflicting, or novel with respect to prior research. Furthermore, we also documented various processes through which respondents integrate seemingly disparate health factors to formulate an answer through valence and conditional health statements. Finally, we found some evidence of sociodemographic group differences with respect to types of health factors mentioned, valence of health factors, and conditional health statements, highlighting avenues for future research. This study provides a description of how participants rate their general health status and highlights potential differences in these processes across sociodemographic groups, helping to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how SRH functions as a measure of health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Social Sciences 6 18%
Psychology 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#9,138,911
of 15,922,434 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,318
of 10,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,012
of 281,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,434 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.