The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
January 14, 2025
Quarterly Article
Stephanie B. Gold
Allison Costello
Maura Gissen
Selin Odman
Larry A. Green
Kurt C. Stange
Réna Swann
Rebecca S. Etz
September 2024
March 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Frustration with the burden of proliferating measures in health care focused on diseases and care processes has added to the growing desire to measure what matters to people, including understanding how people are doing in terms of their whole health. There is no consensus in the literature on an ideal whole person health instrument for use in practice. To provide a foundation for assessing whole person health and support further instrument development, this review summarizes past work on assessing person-reported whole health, articulates conceptual domains encompassing whole health, and identifies lessons from existing instruments, including considerations for administration.
Methods: A scoping literature review and instrument review were conducted. Concepts from the literature and instruments were thematically coded using a grounded theory approach.
Findings: We identified four overarching categories of whole person health, consisting of nine domains: body and mind (physical well-being, mental/emotional well-being, meaning and purpose [spiritual well-being], sexual well-being), relationships (social well-being), living environment and finances (financial well-being, environmental well-being), and engagement in daily life (autonomy and functioning, activities). A tenth domain of global well-being was used for instruments that assessed well-being as a whole. In total, 281 instruments were examined; most were specific to a single domain or subdomain. Fifty instruments assessed at least three domains; only five assessed all domains identified. Two key tensions must be navigated in the development of a whole person health instrument: comprehensiveness versus brevity, and standardization versus flexibility.
Conclusions: The array of whole person health domains identified in this review and lack of consensus on how best to measure health present an opportunity to develop a new instrument to support a shift to whole health care. In addition to better tools for assessment, a shift to whole health care will require broader system transformation in payment, care delivery, and the ecology of measurement.
