Psychometric Properties of Suboptimal Health Status Instruments: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Mohamed Ali Alzain
,
Collins Otieno Asweto
,
Sehar-un-Nisa Hassan
,
Mohammed Elshiekh Saeed
,
Ahmed Kassar
,
Bandar Alsaif

Suboptimal health status (SHS) measurement has now been recognized as an essential construct in predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine. Currently, there are limited tools, and an ongoing debate about appropriate tools.

  • sub-optimal health status
  • measurement
  • tools
  • instruments

1. Introduction

Health has been traditionally conceptualized as a biological function at typical levels of efficiency [1]. However, health, as defined by the WHO, is not just the absence of sickness, but rather the presence of complete well-being [2]. As chronic diseases rise, several researchers suggested redefining health. Health is the ability to adjust to social, physical, and emotional obstacles [3]. In some instances, the medical literature also mentions a third status, which is described as non-disease and non-healthy [3]. Several states of physical discomfort and signs that could not be clearly described as diseases were listed in the ICD-10. These vague health conditions were ascribed as ‘sub-optimal health status’ (SHS) by scholars; later, in 2009, a team of Chinese researchers developed a tool to measure this health status [4]. The construct of SHS has been described as a sub-clinical state where a person is neither experiencing sickness nor is healthy, and there are apparent signs of discomfort [5], which may lead to adverse health outcomes [6]. Since the definition of health has several implications for health policy, practices, and healthcare services, it is essential to define and appropriately measure various states of health and well-being. Recently, scholars and clinicians have pointed out that the current definition of health by the WHO needs to be revisited, in order to deal with emerging challenges in the health system, lifestyle factors, and environmental issues that impact the health and well-being of individuals [7].
SHS has been conceptualized by Feng [8] under the health model, which encompasses biological, psychological, and social domains of health. Low quality of health status without any apparent disease condition experienced by individuals in health domains is considered a sub-health condition. In the physical domain, it presents itself as poor functioning of the body and organs, along with diminished energy levels; deprivation of emotional and cognitive resources for functioning relates to the psychological domain; and in the social domain, it is depicted by non-availability or poor utilization of social resources that may hamper some aspects of social functioning.
Many developed countries, including Saudi Arabia, are undergoing vivid shifts due to fast-paced economic growth, which impacts lifestyles and social systems. The literature from other high-income countries has pointed out that unhealthy lifestyles significantly impact health, and mainly increase the vulnerability for sub-optimal health status [9]. Among the reasons, currently, both a high number of men and women in the workforce are exposed to work pressures and risk for work–family imbalance, and the COVID-19 epidemic has had a negative effect on people’s standard of living in several domains and may have increased the risk of developing SHS [10][11].
SHS is a heightened concern for medical professionals and public health experts because it is a significant risk marker for chronic illnesses. SHS is differentiated from a sub-clinical disease state because it is a low-quality health state that cannot be classified as a disease state [3]. The signs and symptoms experienced by individuals at the onset of mental and psychological disorders have proximity to symptoms of SHS and must be differentiated thoroughly. SHS is usually demonstrated by deterioration in physiological, emotional, and social functioning, leading to a decline in vitality, adaptation, and resilience. According to the diagnostic guidelines provided by the Association of Chinese Medicine [12], symptoms in three areas, namely, systematic, psychological, and social, are evaluated to assess SHS. Among core physical and psychological symptoms are body aches and pain, tiredness, disturbed sleep, low mood, irritability, restlessness, reduced focus, and memory problems. Individuals also experience a decline in interest and engagement in social activities. The decision to diagnose SHS in any three dimensions is made, if an individual experiences symptoms over the previous three months without a baseline disease condition. However, this approach was less accepted due to its subjectivity and was not employed in clinical diagnosis [13].
Different quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches have been used to measure SHS [14][15]. Among the quantitative measures, self-rating scales and checklists have been commonly used, among which are the Suboptimal Health Status Questionnaire- 25 (SHS-25) [4][16] and the sub-health Measurement Scale V1.0 [17]. The comprehensive assessment of SHS also includes measuring stress response using biochemical methods; stress response is considered a causal mechanism that increases the risk of experiencing SHS [18]. Furthermore, a study demonstrated that people with SHS were more likely to report symptoms of fatigue and pain [19]. There are two categories of measures used in determining the SHS. Among the objective indicators are biochemical and anthological-physiological indicators, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high/low blood pressure (BP), and high/low body mass index (BMI). In current medical practice, subjective measures are employed for the clinical diagnosis of SHS after a comprehensive physical examination that excludes specific illnesses. In public health research, self-report measures are widely used to assess SHS.
Interestingly, there are also controversies about whether the measurement of SHS aligns with the SHS theoretical framework, which assumes that environmental factors and psychological states determine SHS, and betterment in these factors should alleviate SHS [16]. Therefore, SHS is seen as a reversible health condition, compared to disease conditions that have progressed toward worsening symptoms.
SHS has now been recognized as an essential construct in personalized medicine to decrease the risk of developing disease and enhance general health. Moreover, the idea of SHS reflects the belief that chronic diseases can be effectively predicted and prevented before a clinical manifestation of severe pathologies from the view of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine [3][5]. It is crucial to have reliable tools to assess SHS, which can be used in clinical practice and community health research. Researchers have noticed that there are limited tools, an ongoing debate about the definition and measurement of SHS, and inconclusive evidence about the psychometric properties of tools to measure SHS [20][21]. Despite the diagnostic standards and assessment of SHS having been shifted to objective indicators, there are unresolved issues related to the appropriateness of measures used in assessment due to the wide range of symptoms, the intensity of symptoms experienced, and their link with many diseases’ conditions [20][21][22].

2. Suboptimal Health Status Questionnaire-25 (SHSQ-25)

2.1. Description of the SHSQ-25

The SHSQ-25 is the most commonly used SHS screening tool. China’s Capital University of Medical’s Wei Wang group invented it in 2007 [3][4], and readily articulated and operationalized it in 2009 [23]. The questionnaire is the outcome of a focus group discussion with apparently healthy individuals, an extensive literature search, and expert opinions [4]. The SHSQ-25 was developed to screen and take into account multidimensional health constructs that could indicate people were feeling poor health and acquired chronic stress. The authors formulated a questionnaire containing 25 items in five domains: (1) fatigue (9 items), (2) the cardiovascular system (3 items), (3) the digestive tract (3 items), (4) the immune system (3 items), and (5) mental status (7 items) [3][4][15][23][24]. It assessed how often individuals suffered from several specific discomforts in the previous three months [24].
The SHSQ-25 is rapid and easy to complete; therefore, it is appropriate for the general population and healthcare settings [4][13][15]. It has been applied and validated in various populations, including Chinese, African, and European [25]. Despite widespread applications of the SHSQ-25, most studies explore psychometric properties only in the Chinese population and, recently, in Ghanaian and Korean populations [23][26][27].

2.2. Scoring System for the SHSQ-25

SHSQ-25 items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale, from never to always [5][19][28][29]. The total score is the aggregate of all 25 questions, scored from 0 to 4 [4][5][14][16]. SHS screening uses the upper limit of a unilateral 90% reference value (X + 1.28S), if the population’s SHS score follows a normal distribution [4]. The percentile and the unilateral P90 value’s upper limit will be used if it does not follow a normal distribution [4]. The SHSQ-25 considers all important factors that affect SHS; hence, the cut-off point is 35 points, the highest limit of the unilateral P90 value [4].

2.3. Reliability and Validity Indicators of the SHSQ-25

Researchers found four studies assessing the instrument’s internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Yan et al. (2009) examined 3000 Chinese individuals, and found item-sub-scale correlations ranging from 0.51 to 0.72, and a Cronbach’s α 0.93 for all sub-scales [4]. Furthermore, Wang and Yan (2012) [15] found a higher Cronbach’s α value (0.91) for internal consistency among 3045 Chinese individuals. Interestingly, Adua, et al. (2021) [23], while assessing the internal consistency of SHSQ-25 among 263 healthy Ghanaians, found Cronbach’s α for each category as follows: fatigue = 0.846, immune-cardiovascular = 0.820, and cognitive = 0.864 [23]. Only one study had test–retest reliability with coefficient values of 0.89 to 0.98 [4]. Adua, et al. (2021) assessed the validity, and the findings revealed a construct validity > 0.7 thresholds [23]. Meanwhile, convergent and discriminant validity values were as follows: fatigue (AVE = 0.366, MSV = 0.701), cognitive (AVE = 0.358, MSV = 0.671), immune-cardiovascular (AVE = 0.537, MSV = 0.185. Recently, a study validated the Korean Septimal Health Questionnaire (KSHSQ-25), and the findings revealed that the test–retest reliability’s range was 0.88–0.99, a Cronbach’s α of 0.953, and a Cronbach’s α for each domain ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 [27].

3. Sub-Health Measurement Scale V1.0 (SHMS V1.0)

3.1. Description of the SHS V1.0

The second instrument was the Sub-Health Measurement Scale V1.0. It is a self-reported multidimensional inventory designed to assess physiological, psychological, and social symptoms to determine SHS. This inventory was devised by researchers in China [28]. The inventory consists of a total of 39 items. The first four items are used to evaluate individual general health, and the remaining thirty-five items are divided into three dimensions [27]. The dimension of physiological symptoms encompasses four factors, which are physical condition, organ function, body movement function, and vigor; these factors are assessed through a set of fourteen questions [30]. The psychological dimension of symptoms contains three factors, which are positive emotions, psychological symptoms, and cognitive functions, and are assessed through a set of twelve questions [27]. The social dimension includes three factors, which assess social adjustment, resources, and support, and comprises a set of nine questions.
The SHMS V 1.0 has been widely used to determine the SHS of participants, especially among nurses, urban residents, college students, and midwives [9][29][31][32][33][34]. The scale was proven to have good psychometric properties in these studies [28][35][36][37].

3.2. Scoring System for the SHMS V1.0

The SHMS V1.0 has a straightforward scoring system. On a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (never) to 5 (often), respondents are asked to rate how often they experienced various types of discomfort over the past six months [30]. A set of items comprises three dimensions, and the total sub-score sums up the score on each dimension. The transformed score is computed using the score conversion formula. The converted score lies between 0 and 100, and represents the health status [30]. A lower total score is interpreted as a worse health status. The cut-off scores are used to differentiate between individuals with positive health and SHS on all three dimensions [38]. These are 66.1, 52.1, and 55.6 for physiological, psychological, and social dimensions, respectively [33]. If the score for these three dimensions is found to be lower than the cut-off, the participant is categorized as having physiological, psychological, and/or social health SHS. In another study [36], the mean, percentile, and threshold norms were established. According to sex and age brackets (14–19, 20–29, 50–64, and 65), norms for the total, physical, mental, and social sub-health of Chinese urban residents were calculated. Computing the mean ± SD and mean ± 0.5SD of the transformed scores yields the threshold norms of SHMS V1.0’s five health states: illness, severe SHS, moderate SHS, mild SHS, and positive health [38].

3.3. Reliability and Validity Indicators of the SHMS V 1.0

Researchers found five studies assessing SHMS V 1.0 psychometric properties; the structural validity showed a high correlation between an item and dimensional scores (0.656 to 0.878). The correlation between each dimension and sub-scale scores was strong (0.586 to 0.868) [39]. Researchers found that the reliability of the SHMS V 1.0 was 0.917. The first study’s Cronbach α coefficient was 0.92, and the split-half coefficient was 0.83 [28]. A study in Tianjin found that the test–retest and overall Cronbach’s coefficients were 0.67 and 0.92, respectively. In addition, the correlation between the SHMS v1.0 and SF-36 was 0.78 (p < 0.01) [37].

4. Multidimensional Sub-Health Questionnaire of Adolescents (MSQA)

4.1. Description of the MSQA

The systematic search found the MSQA, an adolescent assessment tool, as the third SHS instrument. Chinese researchers developed a self-reported questionnaire to assess teenage psychological problems [30]. The MSQA assesses uncomfortable symptoms experienced by respondents in the past three months, and includes 71 items divided into six symptom dimensions: lack of physical energy (11 items), physiological dysfunction (11 items), weakened immunity (10 items), emotional symptoms (17 items), behavioral symptoms (9 items), and social adaptation problems (13 items) [40]. Each item has six answer categories: none or last <1 week, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months [40]. Emotional and behavioral symptoms are measured using 17 and 9 items, respectively. There are 13 items that measure social adaptation issues (e.g., “always disliked school”) [28].

4.2. Scoring System for the MSQA

The MSQA measures emotional, behavioral, and social symptoms [28]. Summing item scores yields the final scores. Summing the 39 item scores yields psychological symptoms. The MSQA National Norm Development [30] sets the psychological symptom cut-off at the 90th percentile for all adolescents. Emotional, behavioral, social adaptability, and psychological symptoms have cut-off values of 3, 1, 4, and 8, respectively [28]. The MSQA also evaluates psychophysiological functioning. The MSQA has 39 questions on three dimensions based on symptoms experienced in the past three months: 17 for emotional symptoms (e.g., “Do you always feel nervous?”), 9 for behavioral symptoms (e.g., “Do you always have the impulse to damage something?”), and 13 for social adaptation problems (e.g., “Were you always not suited to school life?”) [41][42]. All questions include six response alternatives based on symptom duration: none, last <1 week, last 1–2 weeks, last 1 month, last 2 months, last 3 months [28]. The symptom duration “last 0–1 week” was converted into “1” (positive items) and “none or last <1 week” into “0” (negative items) [41][42][43]. Psychopathological symptoms required eight or more “1” scores [42].

4.3. Reliability and Validity Indicators of the MSQA

Researchers found four studies assessing the psychometric properties of the MSQA. The test–retest reliability was around 0.87 in three studies. Moreover, the Cronbach alpha coefficient and split-half reliability were around 0.96 and 0.94, respectively [30][40][41][42][44]. The total scale of Cronbach’s α for physiological, psychological, and social components demonstrated good reliability at 0.91, 0.85, and 0.85, respectively [33].

5. Sub-Health Self-Rating Scale (SSS)

5.1. Description of the SSS

The search retrieved the Sub-Health Self-Rating Scale (SSS), which Chinese researchers developed to assess the SHS of university students [31]. It determines the SHS of individuals by assessing three dimensions of health (physiological, psychological, and social). A total of 58 items comprises the scale, and scoring is conducted on ten labelled factors (F1 to F10). The physiological dimension symptoms include six factors: sleep, fatigue, skin, pain, digestive, and urine, which are labelled F5, F7, F9, F3, F4, and F10, respectively. The social encompass dimension symptoms comprise two factors: F6 and F8, capability and self-respect factor, and social relationship factor, respectively. The psychological dimension symptoms contain two factors: F2—passive feeling factor, and F1—positive feeling factor [39].

5.2. Scoring System for SSS Measures

The SSS is scored by adding the raw scores on items or sub-scales [39]. Each item contains five answer categories for symptom severity (never = 5, occasionally = 4, sometimes = 3, constantly = 2, and always = 1). Before adding the scores, the 16 symptoms are inversely converted. The converted score is the raw score minus the lowest possible sub-scale or total scale score, divided by the highest possible score minus the lowest. The T score measures test score variability as (X + −X)/S, where X is the raw score, −X is the overall mean score, and S is the population standard deviation [39].

5.3. Reliability and Validity Indicators of the SSS

The SSS’s psychometric qualities were assessed using the Cronbach α coefficient of 0.942 [39]. The reliability for each physiological, psychological, and social dimension was reliable: 0.915, 0.856, and 0.850, respectively [39]. The Bartlett test of sphericity showed validity (2 = 7778.7; p = 0.000), and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) score of sample adequacy was 0.94.
To sum up, there are some evidence about the psychometric properties of instruments; most of them were based upon studies from China. Among the reliability indicators, three parameters were commonly reported: (1) the internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s α value ranged between 0.71 and 0.96; (2) the test–retest reliability ranged from 0.64 to 0.98; and (3) the split-half reliability coefficient values ranged between 0.64 and 0.98, and between 0.83 and 0.96, respectively. All three indicators of reliability revealed acceptable levels of evidence about the reliability of these measures.
The indicators of the validity of tools were determined through (1) construct validity, (2) convergent validity, and (3) divergent validity, and it was accomplished for three subjective measures, namely the SHSQ-25, MSQA, and SSS. For the validity coefficient values in the case of SHSQ-25 > 0.71, SHMS-1.0 ranged from 0.64 to 0.87, and SSS ranged from 0.74 to 0.96, and can be considered as acceptable.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jpm13020299

References

  1. Boorse, C. Health as a Theoretical Concept. Philos. Sci. 1977, 44, 542–573.
  2. Misselbrook, D. W is for Wellbeing and the WHO definition of health. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2014, 64, 582.
  3. Zhang, Y.; Shao, J. A systemic review of suboptimal health. Glob. J. Public Health 2015, 2, 20.
  4. Yan, Y.-X.; Liu, Y.-Q.; Li, M.; Hu, P.-F.; Guo, A.-M.; Yang, X.-H.; Qiu, J.-J.; Yang, S.-S.; Shen, J.; Zhang, L.-P.; et al. Development and Evaluation of a Questionnaire for Measuring Suboptimal Health Status in Urban Chinese. J. Epidemiol. 2009, 19, 333–341.
  5. Yang, Z.M.; Yang, X.B.; Huang, L. A literature review on the conceptual framework of sub-health. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi 2010, 30, 757–763. (In Chinese)
  6. Ge, S.; Xu, X.; Zhang, J.; Hou, H.; Wang, H.; Liu, D.; Zhang, X.; Song, M.; Li, D.; Zhou, Y.; et al. Suboptimal health status as an independent risk factor for type 2 diabetes mellitus in a community-based cohort: The China suboptimal health cohort study. EPMA J. 2019, 10, 65–72.
  7. Leonardi, F. The Definition of Health: Towards New Perspectives. Int. J. Health Serv. 2018, 48, 735–748.
  8. Feng, L.Y.; Xu, J.; Luo, R.; Qiu, J.; Zhang, J. Analysis and build-up for sub-health evaluating indicator system. Chin. Gen. Pract. 2011, 14, 37–40.
  9. JChen, J.; Xiang, H.; Jiang, P.; Yu, L.; Jing, Y.; Li, F.; Wu, S.; Fu, X.; Liu, Y.; Kwan, H.; et al. The Role of Healthy Lifestyle in the Implementation of Regressing Suboptimal Health Status among College Students in China: A Nested Case-Control Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 240.
  10. Algahtani, F.D.; Hassan, S.-u.-N.; Alsaif, B.; Zrieq, R. Assessment of the Quality of Life during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 847.
  11. Kontodimopoulos, N.; Poulaki, E.; Fanourgiakis, J.; Talias, M.A. The Association between Fear of COVID-19 and Health-Related Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Greek General Population. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1891.
  12. Zhu, R. Clinical guidelines of Chinese medicine on sub-health. Chin. Med. Mod. Distance Educ. China 2009, 7, 5–6.
  13. Wang, Y.; Ge, S.; Yan, Y.; Wang, A.; Zhao, Z.; Yu, X.; Qiu, J.; Alzain, M.A.; Wang, H.; Fang, H.; et al. China suboptimal health cohort study: Rationale, design and baseline characteristics. J. Transl. Med. 2016, 14, 291.
  14. Peng, N.; Xiao, D. Research state of sub-health diagnosis and assessment methods. Chin. Arch. Tradit. Chin. Med. 2009, 27, 1324–1326.
  15. Wang, W.; Yan, Y. Suboptimal health: A new health dimension for translational medicine. Clin. Transl. Med. 2012, 1, e28.
  16. Hou, H.; Feng, X.; Li, Y.; Meng, Z.; Guo, D.; Wang, F.; Guo, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Peng, Z.; Zhang, W.; et al. Suboptimal health status and psychological symptoms among Chinese college students: A perspective of predictive, preventive and personalised health. EPMA J. 2018, 9, 367–377.
  17. Lu, Y.; Xu, J.; Cai, Y.J.; Xie, J.; Qiu, J.C.; Wei, Q. Reliability and validity of shs measurement scale version 1.0 for measuring the shs of urban residents in three districts. Chin. J. Health Psychol. 2013, 21, 707–708.
  18. Yan, Y.-X.; Dong, J.; Liu, Y.-Q.; Zhang, J.; Song, M.-S.; He, Y.; Wang, W. Association of suboptimal health status with psychosocial stress, plasma cortisol and mRNA expression of glucocorticoid receptor α/β in lymphocyte. Stress 2015, 18, 29–34.
  19. Kaplan, G.; Baron-Epel, O. What lies behind the subjective evaluation of health status? Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56, 1669–1676.
  20. Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Qiu, J.; Wang, H.; Liu, D.; Zhao, Z.; Song, M.; Song, Q.; Wang, X.; Zhou, Y.; et al. Association between Ideal Cardiovascular Health Metrics and Suboptimal Health Status in Chinese Population. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14975.
  21. Kolokoltsev, M.; Ambartsumyan, R.; Gryaznykh, A.; Kraynik, V.; Makeeva, V.; Tonoyan, K.; Romanova, E.; Savchenkov, A.; Mischenko, N.; Vrachinskaya, T. Physical activity amount influence over suboptimal health status. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2021, 21, 381–387.
  22. Wang, L.; Zhao, X.; Chen, J.; Guo, X.; Liang, X.; Yi, D.; Cui, H.; Liu, Y. Biological indicators of sub-optimal health status. J. Tradit. Chin. Med. 2013, 33, 647–650.
  23. Adua, E.; Afrifa-Yamoah, E.; Frimpong, K.; Adama, E.; Karthigesu, S.P.; Anto, E.O.; Aboagye, E.; Yan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tan, X.; et al. Construct validity of the Suboptimal Health Status Questionnaire-25 in a Ghanaian population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2021, 19, 180.
  24. Wang, W.; Yan, Y.; Guo, Z.; Hou, H.; Garcia, M.; Tan, X.; Anto, E.O.; Mahara, G.; Zheng, Y.; Li, B.; et al. All around suboptimal health—A joint position paper of the Suboptimal Health Study Consortium and European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine. EPMA J. 2021, 12, 403–433.
  25. Dissemination, C. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York Univ. York NHS Cent. Rev. Dissem. 2009. Available online: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index_guidance.htm (accessed on 21 October 2021).
  26. Anto, E.O.; Roberts, P.; Coall, D.; Turpin, C.A.; Adua, E.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W. Integration of suboptimal health status evaluation as a criterion for prediction of preeclampsia is strongly recommended for healthcare management in pregnancy: A prospective cohort study in a Ghanaian population. EPMA J. 2019, 10, 211–226.
  27. Guo, Z.; Meng, R.; Zheng, Y.; Li, X.; Zhou, Z.; Yu, L.; Tang, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Garcia, M.; Yan, Y.; et al. Translation and cross-cultural validation of a precision health tool, the Suboptimal Health Status Questionnaire-25, in Korean. J. Glob. Health 2022, 12, 1–9.
  28. Xu, J.; Feng, L.-Y.; Luo, R.; Qiu, J.-C.; Zhang, J.-H.; Zhao, X.-S.; Lu, Y.; Wei, Q. Assessment of the reliability and validity of the Sub-health Measurement Scale Version1.0. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao = J. South. Med Univ. 2011, 31, 33–38.
  29. Stein, C.; Fisher, L.; Berkey, C.; Colditz, G. Adolescent Physical Activity and Perceived Competence: Does Change in Activity Level Impact Self-Perception? J. Adolesc. Health 2007, 40, 462.e1–462.e8.
  30. Yao, Y.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y.; Kang, Y.; Gu, Q.; Fang, W.; Qing, R.; Lu, W.; Jin, Y.; Ren, X.; et al. Correlation analysis of anxiety status and sub-health status among students of 13-26 years old. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 9810.
  31. Bi, J.; Huang, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Cheng, J.; Li, F.; Wang, T.; Chen, J.; Wu, L.; Liu, Y.; Luo, R.; et al. Association of lifestyle factors and suboptimal health status: A cross-sectional study of Chinese students. BMJ Open 2014, 4, e005156.
  32. Wang, T.; Chen, J.; Sun, X.; Xiang, L.; Zhou, L.; Li, F.; Lin, C.; Jiang, P.; Wu, S.; Xiao, Y.; et al. Effects of TCMC on Transformation of Good Health Status to Suboptimal Health Status: A Nested Case-Control Study. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 2015, 259727.
  33. Lolokote, S.; Hidru, T.H.; Li, X. Do socio-cultural factors influence college students’ self-rated health status and health-promoting lifestyles? A cross-sectional multicenter study in Dalian, China. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 478.
  34. Liu, Q.; Li, X. The Interactions of Media Use, Obesity, and Suboptimal Health Status: A Nationwide Time-Trend Study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13214.
  35. Wu, S.; Xuan, Z.; Li, F.; Xiao, W.; Fu, X.; Jiang, P.; Chen, J.; Xiang, L.; Liu, Y.; Nie, X.; et al. Work-Recreation Balance, Health-Promoting Lifestyles and Suboptimal Health Status in Southern China: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 339.
  36. Xu, J.; Xue, Y.; Liu, G.; Feng, Y.; Xu, M.; Xie, J.; Wang, X.; Chen, X.; Jiang, L. Establishment of the norms of Sub-Health measurement scale version 1.0 for Chinese urban residents. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao = J. South. Med. Univ. 2019, 39, 271–278.
  37. Miao, J.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, H. Reliability and validity of SHMS v1. 0 for suboptimal health status assessment of Tianjin residents and factors affecting sub-health: A cross-sectional study. Medicine 2021, 100, e25401.
  38. Ma, C.; Zhou, L.; Xu, W.; Ma, S.; Wang, Y. Associations of physical activity and screen time with suboptimal health status and sleep quality among Chinese college freshmen: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239429.
  39. Bi, J.-L.; Chen, J.; Sun, X.-M.; Nie, X.-L.; Liu, Y.-Y.; Luo, R.; Zhao, X.-S. The development and evaluation of a sub-health self-rating scale for university students in China. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 330.
  40. Tang, Y.; Wan, Y.; Xu, S.; Zhang, S.; Hao, J.; Tao, F. Nonlinear relationship between sleep duration and non-suicidal self-injurious behaviour among Chinese adolescents. BMC Psychiatry 2021, 21, 521.
  41. Huang, C.; Yuan, Q.; Ge, M.; Sheng, X.; Yang, M.; Shi, S.; Cao, P.; Ye, M.; Peng, R.; Zhou, R.; et al. Childhood trauma and non-suicidal self-injury among Chinese adolescents: The mediating role of psychological sub-health. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 798369.
  42. Cao, H.; Sun, Y.; Wan, Y.; Hao, J.; Tao, F. Problematic Internet use in Chinese adolescents and its relation to psychosomatic symptoms and life satisfaction. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 802.
  43. Chen, J.; Cheng, J.; Liu, Y.; Tang, Y.; Sun, X.; Wang, T.; Xiao, Y.; Li, F.; Xiang, L.; Jiang, P.; et al. Associations between breakfast eating habits and health-promoting lifestyle, suboptimal health status in Southern China: A population based, cross sectional study. J. Transl. Med. 2014, 12, 348.
  44. Xing, C.; Tao, F. Evaluation of reliability and validity of the multidimensional sub-health ques-tionnaire of adolescents. Chin. J. Public Health 2008, 24, 103–131.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback