Original research
Positive Health dialogue tool and value-based healthcare: a qualitative exploratory study during residents’ outpatient consultations
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Mapping positive health in patients with gastrointestinal disorders
    • Anja H.W.M. Lemlijn-Slenter, PhD-student, Insurance Physician Div. of Gast. Hep. and dept. of Int. Med., NUTRIM, MUMC+; Dept. of Soc. Med., CAPHRI, Maastricht University; UWV
    • Other Contributors:
      • Karolina A.P. Wijnands, PhD, Insurance Physician
      • Angelique de Rijk, Professor
      • Ad A.M. Masclee, Professor emeritus

    We would like to add a clinical perspective to the debate on the concept of Positive Health (PH) and its measurement. A decade ago, Huber et al. in 2011 (1) introduced this concept, which provides a broad perspective of people’s health. PH includes six dimensions: bodily functions, mental functions, meaningfulness, quality of life, social participation and daily activities. A dialogue tool was developed to map the dimensions of PH in practice. Meanwhile, the concept is increasingly used in clinical practice and research.

    In 2021, Bock et al. (2) described in this journal how residents experienced the use of the dialogue tool in outpatient consultations. They concluded in this journal that using this tool brings bivalent experiences: on the one hand, it yielded valuable patient information beyond physical health. The dynamic in resident–patient communication was changed. On the other hand, they concluded that the tool was not usable for simple situations, for follow-up consultations and lacked to provide details for super specialised care.

    We agree with Bock et al. that the dialogue tool is helpful but limited in its applicability. Communication is improved via the tool, but there is a need for a more structured approach to obtaining patient data that cover the six PH dimensions. Such more precise data are helpful for following-up of patients, for comparison with other (groups of) patients and for scientific purposes. In practice, gaining a broader insight...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.