ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Patient- and provider-level determinants of self-assessed health and well-being among adults with chronic conditions in Slovenian primary care.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic diseases significantly impact patients’ quality of life and healthcare systems. In Slovenia, understanding the factors influencing self-assessed health and well-being can support more effective primary care policies. The purpose of this study was to identify patient- and provider-level factors associated with general health and well-being among Slovenian adults with chronic conditions.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted as part of the OECD-led PaRIS initiative. Data were collected from 2133 patients aged ≥ 45 years with at least one chronic condition and 70 primary care providers. Well-being was measured via the WHO-5 Well-Being Index; general health was self-rated. Mixed-effects models were used to assess associations between well-being (linear mixed model for a continuous outcome) and general health (logistic mixed-effects model for a binary outcome) and sociodemographic, behavioural, and provider-level variables.
resultsGeneral health was rated as excellent, very good, or good by 62.5% of the patients. The mean well-being score was 60.9 (SD = 20.9). The key patient-level predictors of better health and well-being were higher income (medium vs. low OR = 1.64, 95% CI [1.26, 2.15]; high vs. low OR = 2.28, 95% CI [1.62, 3.21]), regular physical activity (OR = 1.98, 95% CI [1.57, 2.50]), age and BMI. The last two were nonlinearly associated with optimal well-being near a BMI of 25 and peaking at approximately 65–69 years of age. Male sex was associated only with greater well-being, whereas employment (OR = 2.41, 95% CI [1.67, 3.50]) and higher education (OR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.17, 1.97]) were only associated with better health. Among the provider-level factors, only the public health care setting was positively associated with well-being. Surprisingly, receiving written self-management instructions more often was linked to slightly lower well-being. Observed differences in wellbeing reached clinical relevance (10 points) for age, BMI, and regular physical activity (b = 10.46, 95% CI [8.48, 12.43]).
conclusionsPatient-level factors were strongly associated with self-assessed health and well-being among patients with chronic conditions, whereas provider-level organisational features showed limited associations. Care in public health care settings was associated with higher well-being. These findings support the need for age- and BMI-sensitive interventions, behaviour-focused care, and socially equitable policies in chronic disease management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.