Of the 29 articles selected, 26 were primary research articles, the features of which are presented in Table 2, and three were literature reviews.
The three literature reviews covered different types of industrial facilities: mining (25), waste treatment (26) and sites contaminated by industries (5). Two literature reviews (25, 26) looked at pathologies reported by the respondents, and of these two reviews, only one presented results in terms of individual or community well-being (25).
Mining (n = 11) and manufacturing (n = 10) accounted for the majority of articles, as opposed to waste plants (n = 4) and nuclear power plants (n = 1). The facilities were mainly located in Asia (n = 11), North America (n = 6) and Europe (n = 5). Three facilities were identified in Africa and one site was in South America.
Definition of perceived health used
The term “perceived health” was not defined in the same way in different articles. Some definitions related to people’s state of health, for example self-reported organic diseases (n = 11), self-perceived mental health (n = 5) and self-perceived health (n = 4), while other definitions focused on well-being and quality of life (n = 10), which could include aspects other than state of health, such as the living environment or social relationships.
Four articles combined two types of definition of perceived health: Zejda (2000), Hendryx (2013) and Antabe (2020) used self-reported organic diseases and self-perceived health, and Thongtip (2019) combined self-reported organic diseases with well-being and quality of life (see Table 2).
Table 2
Definitions of perceived health and tools to assess it by type of industrial facility in the 26 primary research articles included
Articles | Definition of perceived health | Type of industrial facility | Countries | Tool used | Validity and reliability |
Askarov (2023) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Manufacture | Kazakhstan | Standardized quantitative scale (WHOQOL Bref) | Not mentioned |
Boardman (2008) | Self-perceived mental health | Manufacture | USA | Standardized quantitative scale (K6) | Mentioned with reference |
Chatenoud (2005) | Self-perceived health | Manufacture | Italy | Standardized quantitative scale (MOS SF-12) | Mentioned with reference |
Downey (2005) | Self-perceived mental health | Manufacture | USA | Questionnaire asked in a national survey (Community, Crime, and Health Survey) | Coefficient alpha de cronbach |
Ibrahim (2003) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Manufacture | Singapore | Items used in other surveys | Not mentioned |
Khatatbeh (2020) | Self-reported organic diseases | Manufacture | Jordan | Survey specific items | Coefficient alpha de cronbach |
Kim, H (2016) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Manufacture | South Korea | Standardized quantitative scale (EQ5D) | Mentioned with reference |
Pan (2022) | Self-perceived mental health | Manufacture | Taïwan | Standardized quantitative scale (DRPST and Sleep quality scale) and Survey specific items | Mentioned but not for all tools |
Szemik (2019) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Manufacture | Poland | Standardized quantitative scale (WHOQOL Bref) | Mentioned |
Thongtip (2019) | Self-reported organic diseases and Wellbeing and quality of life | Manufacture | Thaïlande | Standardized quantitative scale (MOS SF-36) and Survey specific Items | Mentioned with reference |
Antabe (2020) | Self-reported organic diseases and Self-perceived health | Mining | Ghana | Standardized quantitative scale (QEESI) and Survey specific items | Mentioned with reference |
Butscher (2020) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Mining | Zimbabwe | Standardized quantitative scale (EQ5D) | Mentioned but not for all tools |
Ekosse (2011) | Self-reported organic diseases | Mining | Botswana | Survey specific items | Not mentioned |
Hendryx (2009) | Self-reported organic diseases | Mining | USA | Questionnaire asked in a national survey (BRFSS and NHIS family cancer history module) | Mentioned with reference |
Hendryx (2011) | Self-reported organic diseases | Mining | USA | Questionnaire asked in a national survey (BRFSS and NHIS family cancer history module) | Mentioned with reference |
Hendryx (2013) | Self-reported organic diseases and Self-perceived health | Mining | USA | Questionnaire asked in a national survey (BRFSS) and Survey specific items | Mentioned but not for all tools |
Zainuddin Rela (2018) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Mining | Indonesia | Survey specific items | Coefficient alpha de cronbach |
Kruger (2022) | Self-perceived mental health | Mining | Germany | Standardized quantitative scale (PHQ-SADS) | Mentioned |
Li Qian (2018) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Mining | China | Survey specific items | Not mentioned |
Vergara (2021) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Mining | Colombia | Standardized quantitative scale (MOS SF-36) | Mentioned with reference |
Zullig (2010) | Wellbeing and quality of life | Mining | USA | Questionnaire asked in a national survey (BRFSS) | Mentioned with reference |
Kawano (2006) | Self-reported organic diseases | Nuclear power plant | Kazakhstan | Items used in other surveys | Not mentioned |
Hoang (2022) | Self-reported organic diseases | Waste plant | Vietnam | Survey specific items | Not mentioned |
Kim, D (2022) | Self-reported organic diseases | Waste plant | South Korea | Survey specific items | Not mentioned |
Lima (2004) | Self-perceived mental health | Waste plant | Portugal | Standardized quantitative scale (PSS4) | Coefficient alpha de cronbach |
Zejda (2000) | Self-reported organic diseases and Self-perceived health | Waste plant | Poland | Survey specific items | Not mentioned |
Tools used to measure perceived health
Four types of measurement tools were used: Standardized quantitative scale (n = 13), survey-specific items, with no suggestion of repetition over time and specific to the context of the industrial facility (n = 11), questionnaire used in national and periodical surveys, (n = 5), and items from other ad hoc surveys (n = 2).
Five articles used a combination of several tools: three articles combined a standardized quantitative scale with survey-specific items (Antabe 2020, Thongtip 2019, Pan 2022), one used a questionnaire from a national study including a psychometric scale (Downey 2005), and another combined a questionnaire used in a periodical national survey with survey-specific questions (Hendryx 2013).
Five articles based their study on a national survey, with the majority using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (Hendryx 2009, Hendryx 2011, Hendryx 2013, Zullig 2010) (27), the National Health Interview Survey – Family history of cancer module (Hendryx 2011) (28), and the Survey of Community, Crime and Health (CCH) (Downey 2005) (29). These surveys, carried out in the United States, have the potential to be repeated over time, being delivered in several states, and some include a section on the perceived state of health of the respondents (Table 3). The BRFSS and CCH are two questionnaires that include a standardized quantitative scale for measuring perceived health status: the CDC-HRQOL-4, a scale created for the BRFSS and used since in other surveys, and the CES-D, used in the CHC survey.
In three articles (Hendryx 2009, Hendryx 2011, Hendryx 2013) the questionnaire was used to collect data, while in two articles (Downey 2005, Zullig 2010) the data were extracted from existing databases.
Table 3
Characteristics of periodical national surveys that delivered tools for measuring perceived health
National and periodical surveys | Characteristics | Standardized quantitative scale (health perception) | Countries | Periodicity | References |
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) | The fixed core (and rotating core), the optional modules, and state-added questions | CDC HRQOL-4 | USA (50 states) | Each year | Hendryx (2009), Hendryx (2011), Hendryx (2013), Zullig (2010) |
Family cancer history module of the National Health Interview Survey | Part of the Cancer Control Supplement to the National Health Interview Survey | | USA | Prior to 2019 : Every 5 years, Since 2019 : Each year | Hendryx (2009), Hendryx (2011), |
Community, criminal and health survey | Domains : Physical and mental health, Health behaviors, Use of medical service, Sense of control, Social support, Perceived neighborhood characteristics, Neighborhood social support, Personal and household demographics, Financial strain, History of adversity, Criminal behavior | Center for Epidemiologic Studies- Depression Scale | USA (Illinois) | 1995 and 1998 | Downey (2005) |
Thirteen articles use standardized quantitative scales, the characteristics of which are presented in Table 4. Including a variable number of items (4–40 items), these scales may cover several domains that make up perceived health. In total, 10 different standardized quantitative scales were identified, addressing phenomena such as anxiety, depression, stress, quality of life and well-being. All scales used have an English translation available (30–39).
Table 4
Characteristics of standardized quantitative scales
Standardized quantitative scale | Items | Domains | References |
MOS SF36 : Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey | 36 items | Physical Functioning, Bodily Pain, Role Limitations due to Physical Problems, General Health Perceptions, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems, General Mental Health | Thongtip (2019) Vergara (2021) |
EQ5D : EuroQol-5-Dimension | 6 items | Mobility, Self-care, Usual activities, Pain/discomfort, Anxiety/depression | Kim, H (2016) Butscher (2020) |
Whoqol Bref : World Health Organization Quality of Life | 26 items | Physical health, Psychological health, Social relationships, Environment | Szemik (2019) Askarov (2023) |
PSS4 : Perceived Stress Scale | 4 items | Perceived Stress | Lima (2004) |
MOS SF12 : Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey | 12 items | Physical Functioning, Bodily Pain, Role Limitations due to Physical Problems, General Health Perceptions, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems, General Mental Health | Chatenoud (2005) |
K6 : Kessler Psychological Distress Scale | 6 items | Psychological distress | Boardman (2008) |
QEESI : The Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory | 40 items | Symptom severity, Chemical intolerances, Other intolerances, Life impact | Antabe (2020) |
DRPST : Disaster-Related Psychological Screening test | 10 items | Posttraumatic stress disorder, Major depressive disorder | Pan (2022) |
Sleep Quality Scale | 28 items | Daytime symptoms, Restoration after sleep, Problems initiating, Maintaining sleep, Difficulty waking, Sleep satisfaction | Pan (2022) |
PHQ-SADS : The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptom Scales | 31 items | Depression, Anxiety, Somatic symptoms Panic measure | Kruger (2022) |
Validation of tools used
Several types of tools were identified with different approaches in terms of their validity and reliability (see Table 2). The concepts of validation and reliability of the tools used were justified with a reference (n = 10), not mentioned (n = 8), mentioned without a reference (n = 2), mentioned but not for all the tools used (n = 2). In addition, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, a statistical index reflecting an internal consistency of the tool, was used in four articles.
Where standardized quantitative scales (n = 13) were used, the concepts of validating the scale and its reliability were mentioned and supplemented by a reference (n = 6), or mentioned without a bibliographic reference (n = 2). Two articles included the Cronbach alpha coefficients of the scales used and one article did not mention validation of scales at all.
In addition, Pan (2022) used several tools in their study, including two scales. However, validation of only one tool is mentioned, and Butscher (2020) refers to a translation of the validated scale into the local language, with no other mention of validation or reliability of the tool.
All the articles using national and periodical surveys (n = 5) report on the validation of the tool used, with a bibliographic reference. However, one of these combined two tools, but only mentions and references the validation of one tool. Finally, a single article from this group gives the Cronbach alpha coefficient.
In the articles on studies that used items from other ad hoc surveys (n = 2), validation of the tool used was not referenced or mentioned.
For articles mainly using survey-specific items (n = 8), two of them give the Cronbach alpha coefficient, but in the other five there is no mention of validation of the tool. In Thongtip (2019) a standardized quantitative scale was inserted into the questionnaire used and presented in the article, the validation of which is mentioned and referenced without the intrinsic qualities of the questionnaire being tested.