Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individual health monitoring and evaluation instruments help reflect specific health status, enhance people’s acceptance and adherence to treatments, and reduce disease burdens. However, measurement instruments for individual health have not been adequately explored in community settings. This study is to scope the existing evidence with two aims: (1) to identify the individual health measurement instruments for the general population, (2) to synthesize thematic categories that are used to construct the instruments and the way that these instruments are combined in actual usage. METHODS: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and adhered to the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CNKI, and WanFang) were searched from their inception to 15 November 2025. Studies were included if they involved adults from the general population, applied individual health monitoring or evaluation instruments in community or home-based settings, and were peer-reviewed primary or secondary research published in English or Chinese. Studies targeting disease-specific populations or clinical therapeutic interventions were excluded. A double screening process of titles, abstracts, and full text was applied. RESULTS: The search initially identified 51,269 records, of which 257 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 310 individual health measurement instruments. Among these instruments, 53 were related to Health / Quality of Life, 158 focused on Physical Health, 47 on Mental Health, 21 on Health Behaviors, 16 on Healthcare Environment, and 15 on Social Health. The instruments were further categorized as Generic instruments, Mixed instruments, Self-developed instruments, and Specific Indicators, according to how they were used in the studies to generate the final health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review maps individual-level health measurement instruments used in community settings, synthesizing six health domains and multiple instrument types. These findings highlight priorities for developing more balanced and policy-relevant systems for individual health monitoring. A shift from generic to mixed instruments is found, with physical indicators dominating while mental, behavioral, environmental, and social dimensions remain underrepresented. Emerging digital data offer opportunities for more continuous assessment, but challenges in interoperability, privacy, and equity need to be addressed before further progress can be made. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4PS5C (OSF), 4 October 2023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13690-026-01833-2.