Biological health or lived health: which predicts self-reported general health better?

Abstract

BackgroundLived health is a person’s level of functioning in his or her current environment and depends both on the person’s environment and biological health. Our study addresses the question whether biological health or lived health is more predictive of self-reported general health (SRGH).MethodsThis is a psychometric study using cross-sectional data from the Spanish Survey on Disability, Independence and Dependency Situation. Data was collected from 17,739 people in the community and 9,707 from an institutionalized population. The following analysis steps were performed: (1) a biological health and a lived health score were calculated for each person by constructing a biological health scale and a lived health scale using Samejima’s Graded Response Model; and (2) variable importance measures were calculated for each study population using Random Forest, with SRGH as the dependent variable and the biological health and the lived health scores as independent variables.ResultsThe levels of biological health were higher for the community-dwelling population than for the institutionalized population. When technical assistance, personal assistance or both were received, the difference in lived health between the community-dwelling population and institutionalized population was smaller. According to Random Forest’s variable importance measures, for both study populations, lived health is a more important predictor of SRGH than biological health.ConclusionsIn general, people base their evaluation of their own health on their lived health experience rather than their experience of biological health. This study also sheds light on the challenges of assessing biological health and lived health at the general population level.

Toward the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Rehabilitation Set: A Minimal Generic Set of Domains for Rehabilitation as a Health Strategy

“…It is strength since it best reflects the lived experience of persons living with various health conditions. 24 It is a limitation since its response format is based on a Likert scale which reveals ordinal data. Evidence exists that the intervals between two response options in ordinal scales are not equal and may lead to misinference.…”

Which environmental factors are associated with lived health when controlling for biological health? - a multilevel analysis

“…The lived health perspective–the outcome of the interaction between one’s level of capacity and the positive or negative impact of one’s environment–is captured by the concept of performance. The concept of lived health requires a full consideration of the environment’s effect on people’s lives [ 11 ]. Environmental factors include the physical environment (the physical world and it’s features, and the human-made physical world), the social environment (different relationships and roles with other people, people’s attitudes), social systems and services, and policy, rules and laws [ 4 ].…”

Revisiting the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Registry and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER‐MHOS) Linked Data Resource for Patient‐Reported Outcomes Research in Older Adults with Cancer

“…Various health assessments, including the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) have incorporated the healthy days question module, which allows for a continuous measure of self‐perceived health status and adds further dimension to the conceptualization of “lived health”, which may be a better indicator of longevity than “biological health.” A BRFFS study of individuals aged 20 to 64 found that those with cancer reported more physically unhealthy days than those without . Additional surveillance of unhealthy days shows more unhealthy days reported for lower socioeconomic status (SES) and an overall mean rise in number of physically unhealthy days reported for adults aged 65 to 74 from 1993 to 2001 .…”