Psychological health and well-being: why and how should public health specialists measure it? Part 1: Rationale and methods of the investigation, and review of psychiatric epidemiology.

Abstract

There are cogent reasons why public health specialists should take an active interest in and measure the psychological health and well-being of populations. The literature was searched and reviewed with the aim of evaluating survey instruments that would enable public health specialists to measure the psychological health and well-being of populations. The search and review were restricted to instruments that were applicable to adults of working age, and that did not focus on psychotic disorder or organic brain disorder. An attempt was also made to identify instruments that were designed to measure some form of positive well-being and could be applied in population-based surveys. Detailed evaluation was then carried out of two or three instruments that appeared representative of a particular field or approach. The literature search revealed three major fields of research, 'Psychiatric Epidemiology', 'Stress Studies' and 'Subjective Well-being'. Accordingly, the results of the review are presented under these three headings. Results pertaining to commonly used survey instruments in the field of 'Psychiatric Epidemiology' are presented. (Those on 'Stress Studies' and 'Subjective Well-being' are presented in Part 2 of this study.) Although some questionnaires in the field of 'Psychiatric Epidemiology', such as the General Health Questionnaire and the HAD Scale, offer a valid and convenient means of measuring degrees of neurotic disorder in a population, they do not measure any form of positive well-being. In Part 2, methods of measurement from the other two fields are reviewed and overall conclusions are drawn about the options available to public health specialists.