ABSTRACT
Introduction Using the ‘positive health’ perspective has emerged in general healthcare. Conceptual similarities exist with the ‘recovery’ perspective in mental healthcare. Both concepts are multidimensional and focus on capability. The My Positive Health (MPH) and Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC) tools were developed for dialogues. These tools might be useful for quantitively measuring the positive health construct for monitoring and scientific purposes as well. We aimed to investigate this.
Method An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in a representative general Dutch population (the LISS panel) to investigate factor structures and internal consistency from the 42-items MPH and 12-items I.ROC. After randomly splitting the dataset, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were applied. Spearman correlation coefficient between both tools’ total scores was calculated.
Results 2,457 participants completed the questionnaires. A six-factor structure was extracted for MPH (PH42) and a two-factor structure for I.ROC (I.ROC12). Explained variances were 68.1% and 56.1%, respectively. CFA resulted in good fit indices. Cronbach’s alphas were between 0.74 to 0.97 (PH42) and 0.73 to 0.87 (I.ROC12). Correlation between the total scores was 0.77.
Conclusion Both PH42 and I.ROC12 are useful to quantitatively measure positive health aspects which can be summarised in sum scores in a general population. The dimensions found in this study and the corresponding item division differed from the dimensions of the original dialogue tools. Further research is recommended focussing on item reduction for PH42, factor structure of I.ROC and assessment of construct validity (in a general population) in more depth.
Competing Interest Statement
MvV co-developed the MPG and worked at the Institute for Positive Health at the start of this study. BR previously worked at Penumbra Scotland, where the I.ROC was developed.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was given by the METC Brabant (Tilburg, the Netherlands, study 159 number NW2024-15).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS
Funding: The study was funded by the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Conflicts of interests: MvV co-developed the MPG and worked at the Institute for Positive Health at the start of this study. BR previously worked at Penumbra Scotland, where the I.ROC was developed.
Ethical approval: The study was conducted in accordance with current public regulations, laws, and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was given by each participant to be included as a LISS-panel member.
Data availability: All data from the LISS panel are anonymised and available upon request for researchers and policymakers. For more information see: https://www.lissdata.nl/access-data.
Data Availability
All data from the LISS panel are anonymised and available upon request for researchers and policymakers. For more information see: https://www.lissdata.nl/access-data.
