Measuring Happiness and Self-perceived Social Health of Iranian Medical Students


Department of Medical Informatics, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran


Abstract Background: Based on WHO (World Health Organization) definition of 'health' as an asset, not merely the absence of disease or disability, positive health indicators has fast become a key concern of health system. Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess self-perceived social health and happiness of Iranian medical students. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a public medical school in 2015. The target population of the study was all students from three educational levels (basic science students, externs and interns). Social health was assessed by a scale in three domains named as 'community', 'family', and 'friends and relatives', containing 33 questions with a series of declarative items providing a total score of social health ranging from 33-165. To measure happiness a 40 item questionnaire was used. Responses to each item were given on a five- point Likert style scale. The score of items were added up to provide the whole score of happiness ranging from 40 to 200. The study protocol was approved by executive and ethical research board of the institution. Results: A total of 150 students were participated with mean age of 23.2 (SD=2.3), of whom 56% were females. The mean of self- perceived social health score of medical students was 102.8 (95% CI: 100.0-105.6). Happiness score of medical students was 144.0 (95% CI: 140.4-147.5) in a range between 104 and 188. Pearson correlation coefficient between social health and happiness was 0.68 (P- value


  1. 1.World Health Organization . Fifty-eighth World Health Assembly: Practical information for delegates of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in official relations with the World Health Organization (WHO).: World Heal. Organ.; 2005. Available from: http://www. pdf.

    1. Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications: United Nations Statistics Devision; Available from: unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.
    2. Gambo I, Oluwagbemi O, Achimugu P. Lack of Interoperable Health Information Systems in Developing Countries: An Impact Analysis. JHIDC. 2011;5(1):185–196.
    3. Amatayakul MK. Electronic health records: A practical guide for professionals and organizations.: American Health Information Management Association Chicago, IL; 2004.
    4. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(10):742–52.
    5. Valdes I, Kibbe DC, Tolleson G, Kunik ME, Petersen LA. Barriers to proliferation of electronic medical records. Inform Prim Care. 2004;12(1):3–9.
    6. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001. 8. Erstad TL. Analyzing computer based patient records: a review of literature. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2003;17(4):51–7.
    7. Azizi AA, Hasibian MR, Tara M. Systematic Review of the factors influencing the implementation And acceptance of electronic Health records.: 2012.
    8. Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(5):505–16. 11. HIMSS Electronic Health Record Definitional Model. 2003. Available from: pdf.
    9. Wang SJ, Middleton B, Prosser LA, Bardon CG, Spurr CD, Carchidi PJ, et al. A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. Am J Med. 2003;114(5):397–403.
    10. Jensen RE, Chan KS, Weiner JP, Fowles JB, Neale SM. Implementing electronic health record-based quality measures for developmental screening. Pediatrics. 2009;124(4):e648–54.
    11. Fleming NS, Culler SD, McCorkle R, Becker ER, Ballard DJ. The financial and nonfinancial costs of implementing electronic health records in primary care practices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):481–9.
    12. Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG, et al. Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(16):1628–38.
    13. Hubner U, Ammenwerth E, Flemming D, Schaubmayr C, Sellemann B. IT adoption of clinical information systems in Austrian and German hospitals: results of a comparative survey with a focus on nursing. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:8.
    14. Yoon D, Chang BC, Kang SW, Bae H, Park RW. Adoption of electronic health records in Korean tertiary teaching and general hospitals. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(3):196–203.
    15. Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(2):116–26.
    16. Ouma S, Herselman ME. E-health in rural areas: Case of developing countries. Int J Biol Life Sci. 2008;4(4):194–200.
    17. Watzlaf VJ, Zeng X, Jarymowycz C, Firouzan PA. Standards for the content of the electronic health record. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2004;1:1.
    18. Boonstra A, Broekhuis M. Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:231.
    19. Perritt HH. Law and the Information Superhighway. 2 ed: Aspen Law & Business; 2001.
    20. Thakkar M, Davis DC. Risks, barriers, and benefits of EHR systems: a comparative study based on size of hospital. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2006;3:5.
    21. Coli LA, Surmenta L, Rotberg J, Marcelo A, Clifford G. Mobile Care (Moco) for Remmote Diagnosis and Screening (Electronic Version). JHIDC.;3(1):17–21.
    22. Young P, Elul B, Maulsby C, Winchell D, Mavie B, Fernandes R, et al. Medical record completeness and accuracy at an HIV clinic in Mozambique, 2005-2006. JHIDC. 2010;4(2).
    23. Saleem T. Implementation of EHRs/EPR in England. A model for developing countries. JHIDC. 2009;3(1):9–12. 27. Foundation of Research and Education of AHIMA . Update: maintaining a legally sound health record--paper and electronic. J AHIMA. 2005;76(10):64A–64L.