How to Measure Population Health: An Exploration Toward an Integration of Valid and Reliable Instruments
- PMID: 29211631
- PMCID: PMC6070127
- DOI: 10.1089/pop.2017.0097
How to Measure Population Health: An Exploration Toward an Integration of Valid and Reliable Instruments
Abstract
Population health management initiatives are introduced to transform health and community services by implementing interventions that combine various services and address the continuum of health and well-being of populations. Insight is required into a population's health to evaluate implementation of these initiatives. This study aims to determine the performance of commonly used instruments for measuring a population's experienced health and explores the assessed concepts of population health. Survey-based Short Form 12, version 2 (SF12, health status), Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM13), and Kessler 10 (K10, psychological distress) data of 3120 respondents was used. Floor/ceiling effects were studied using descriptive statistics. Validity was assessed using factor and discriminant analyses, and reliability was assessed using Cronbach α. Finally, to study covered concepts, exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted, which included additional surveyed characteristics. The SF12 and PAM13 sum scores showed acceptable averages and distributions, while results of the K10 indicated a floor effect. SF12 and K10 measured their expected constructs, while PAM13 did not. The EFA of PAM13 displayed 1 instead of the expected 4 constructs. Reliability was good for all instruments (α 0.89-0.93). The overall EFA identified 4 concepts: mental, physical ability, lifestyle, and self-management. SF12 and PAM13, combined with lifestyle characteristics, are shown to provide insightful information to measure the physical, mental, lifestyle, and self-management concepts of population health. Future research should include additional instruments that cover new aspects introduced by recent definitions of health.
Keywords: Triple Aim; evaluation; population health; population management.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. The authors received the following financial support: This study was funded under SPR project S/133002 of the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands. The funder had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data and writing of the manuscript.
References
-
- Struijs JN, Drewes HW, Heijink R, Baan CA. How to evaluate population management? Transforming the Care Continuum Alliance Population Health Guide into a broadly applicable analytical framework. Health Policy 2015;119:522–529 - PubMed
-
- Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:759–769 - PubMed
-
- Stiefel M, Nolan K. A guide to measuring the triple aim. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2012
-
- Hendrikx RJP, Drewes HW, Spreeuwenberg M, Ruwaard D, Struijs JN, Baan CA. Which triple aim related measures are being used to evaluate population management initiatives? An international comparative analysis. Health Policy 2016;120:471–485 - PubMed
-
- Etches V, Frank J, Di Ruggiero E, Manuel D. Measuring population health: a review of indicators. Ann Rev Public Health 2006;27:29–55 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials