2018, Volume 14, Issue 1

Empirical verification of self-rated positive health (somatic dimension) in men with professional competence in the field of health education



Dawid Dobosz1

1NZOS Ośrodek Rehabilitacji Marek Grodzki, Tychy, Poland


Author for correspondence: Dawid Dobosz; NZOS Ośrodek Rehabilitacji Marek Grodzki, Tychy, Poland; email: DoboszDawid@interia.eu


Full text

Abstract

Background & Study Aim: Self-rated health (SRH) is defined as a “summary statement about the way in which numerous aspects of health, both subjective and objective, are combined within the perceptual framework of the individual respondent”. The aim of this study is to address a question whether reports of young male students of physiotherapy concerning their positive health are concordant with indices based on recommended methods of measuring health?

Material & Methods: Nine male students of physiotherapy (height:  =179.78±6.85; weight:  =73.70 ±6.80) declaring engagement in everyday (n = 6) or occasional (n = 3) physical activity completed. The profile of the sense of positive health and survival abilities indices (SPHSA). It comprises 15 indices of positive health (8 of somatic health – A, 4 of mental health – B, 3 of social health – C) and 8 indices of survival ability – D. The sense of intensity of particular indices (aspects A, B, C) is evaluated in the 1 to 5 scale, where: 1 very low, 2 low, 3 average, 4 high, 5 very high. Additional index “0” is reserved to aspect D.

Empirical verification of participant’s self-reports concerned only somatic health (with the exception of aerobic capacity). Men’s height and weight (for BMI calculation), resting heart rate and blood pressure were measured. Than men performed 5 recommended motoric tests for measuring: anaerobic capacity; flexibility, muscle strength.

Results: The correlation between reported and diagnosed average value of general index of somatic health of young men (r = 0.31) is not statistically significant. Reported and diagnosed values of general index of somatic health are concordant  in 1 men. The remaining 8 men either overestimate (n = 6) or underestimate (n = 2) their somatic health. Difference between men’s reported and diagnosed value of general index of somatic health, in the sense of the average result, is not statistically significant. Six out of nine men declared everyday physical activity. They significantly (p<0.05) overestimated their diastolic blood pressure (highest reported value) and underestimate their flexibility (lowest reported value). Besides, they are inclined to overestimate considerably their systolic blood pressure and BMI and underestimate muscle strength.

Conclusions: Empirical evidence justify recommendation SPHSA as useful tool for measuring people positive health both in clinical settings and populational studies.


Key words: non-apparatus test, self-test, SPHSA questionnaire


Cite this article as:

AMA:

Dobosz D. Empirical verification of self-rated positive health (somatic dimension) in men with professional competence in the field of health education. SMAES. 2018;14

APA:

Dobosz, D., (2018). Empirical verification of self-rated positive health (somatic dimension) in men with professional competence in the field of health education. SMAES, 14

Chicago:

Dobosz, Dawid. 2018. "Empirical verification of self-rated positive health (somatic dimension) in men with professional competence in the field of health education". SMAES 14

Harvard:

Dobosz, D., (2018). Empirical verification of self-rated positive health (somatic dimension) in men with professional competence in the field of health education. SMAES, 14

MLA:

Dobosz, Dawid "Empirical verification of self-rated positive health (somatic dimension) in men with professional competence in the field of health education." SMAES, vol. 14, 2018

Vancouver:

Dobosz D. Empirical verification of self-rated positive health (somatic dimension) in men with professional competence in the field of health education. SMAES 2018; 14