Stakeholder and end-user perspectives to refine the Context-sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ) to measure broad health

INTRODUCTION: Broad health concepts are increasingly embedded in healthcare and other domains. Therefore, in a previous study, we developed and validated the Context-Sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ). The CPHQ is based on Positive Health, the Capability Approach and on perspectives of stakeholders and end-users, including those with a lower socioeconomic position (SEP) with the aim to validly measure broad health. Stakeholders and end-users were involved in the development process. However, professionals working in healthcare, welfare or policy domain were not sufficiently involved, while their perspective on how to measure broad health is needed to support broader applicability and acceptability. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to refine the 32-item CPHQ for cross-domain use through focus group discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders across healthcare, welfare and policy domains, researchers, as well as patients and citizens, including those from a lower SEP, expert review and a member check. METHODS: We conducted nine (FGDs) and one interview with stakeholders from healthcare, welfare, and policy domains, research, patients and (lower SEP) citizens (n = 76). An adapted COMET method analysis and qualitative analysis were used, followed by a member check to validate the changes. RESULTS: Items were omitted, merged or added, leading to a refined CPHQ (28 items). Main themes guiding edits were 1) the importance of avoiding normative phrasing and including subjectively interpretable items, 2) prioritization of items reflecting aspects of experienced health (e.g., "I feel happy" or "I feel healthy"), 3) relevance of functionings. At the same time, views diverged on the inclusion and wording of items related to exclusion, political representation and sense of belonging. These items were subsequently discussed by the core group and evaluated using the predefined decision rules and qualitative feedback. CONCLUSION: The CPHQ refinement involved a wide range of stakeholders, including end-users. This led to a 28-item CPHQ to measure broad health. Future research in different populations and settings is needed to validate and possibly shorten the refined CPHQ.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-08-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330014
Primary Topic
Health, psychology, and well-being
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Stakeholder and end-user perspectives to refine the Context-sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ) to measure broad health

John Dierx, Cheryl Roumen, Mirte Boelens, Tim van Zutphen et al.
PLoS ONE
Health, psychology, and well-being
article

Stakeholder and end-user perspectives to refine the Context-sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ) to measure broad health

John Dierx, Cheryl Roumen, Mirte Boelens, Tim van Zutphen, Jessica C. Kiefte–de Jong, Lenny Nahar‐van Venrooij, Esther J. Bloemen-van Gurp, Pien M.R. Christiaanse, Jaron Schnitzer, Marieke D. Spreeuwenberg, Marja van Vliet, Miriam J.J. de Kleijn, M. Elske van den Akker-van Marle
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Broad health concepts are increasingly embedded in healthcare and other domains. Therefore, in a previous study, we developed and validated the Context-Sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ). The CPHQ is based on Positive Health, the Capability Approach and on perspectives of stakeholders and end-users, including those with a lower socioeconomic position (SEP) with the aim to validly measure broad health. Stakeholders and end-users were involved in the development process. However, professionals working in healthcare, welfare or policy domain were not sufficiently involved, while their perspective on how to measure broad health is needed to support broader applicability and acceptability. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to refine the 32-item CPHQ for cross-domain use through focus group discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders across healthcare, welfare and policy domains, researchers, as well as patients and citizens, including those from a lower SEP, expert review and a member check. METHODS: We conducted nine (FGDs) and one interview with stakeholders from healthcare, welfare, and policy domains, research, patients and (lower SEP) citizens (n = 76). An adapted COMET method analysis and qualitative analysis were used, followed by a member check to validate the changes. RESULTS: Items were omitted, merged or added, leading to a refined CPHQ (28 items). Main themes guiding edits were 1) the importance of avoiding normative phrasing and including subjectively interpretable items, 2) prioritization of items reflecting aspects of experienced health (e.g., "I feel happy" or "I feel healthy"), 3) relevance of functionings. At the same time, views diverged on the inclusion and wording of items related to exclusion, political representation and sense of belonging. These items were subsequently discussed by the core group and evaluated using the predefined decision rules and qualitative feedback. CONCLUSION: The CPHQ refinement involved a wide range of stakeholders, including end-users. This led to a 28-item CPHQ to measure broad health. Future research in different populations and settings is needed to validate and possibly shorten the refined CPHQ.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(8)
Avans University of Applied Sciences (NL), University of Groningen (NL), Zuyd University of Applied Sciences (NL), Tilburg University (NL), Fryske Akademy (NL), Fontys University of Applied Sciences (NL), Leiden University Medical Center (NL), Maastricht University (NL), Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis (NL), The Hague University of Applied Sciences (NL)
ZonMw
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Health, psychology, and well-being
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.