Literature DB >> 27041333

Controversies on the values for health instruments of Chinese medicine.

Zheng-Kun Hou1, Xiang Chang2,3, Feng-Bin Liu4, Nelson Xie5, Nicole Guo6, Xin-Lin Chen7.   

Abstract

Currently, there are increasing debates on the necessity of health instruments in Chinese medicine (CM) emerging in China. This study aims to reevaluate its status and values. Analyzing the causes, limits, advantages, and properties characters of health instruments in CM, it is found that weak fundamental research, incomplete self-awareness, and complicated social factors are the primary causes of debates. A comprehensive analysis showed health instruments in CM have health evaluation benefits to people from a dominant Chinese culture, meet the requirements of cultural background, and bring long-term value to Chinese instrument researches. However, its values and status should be treated differently depending on various subtypes. Although little theoretical and practical evidences proved that patients-reported health instruments in CM should be proposed independently, the doctors- and nurses-reported questionnaires are necessary. With this in mind, the study group proposes the 'Chinese cultural instruments (CCIs)' and 'health-related CCIs'. The latter one aims to evaluate the health status of people in a dominant Chinese culture. The CCIs theory represents Chinese instrument researches on a larger regional and higher level, and resolves the debates on instruments between CM and Western medicine in China. Health instruments in CM bring more scientific and social benefits for Chinese instrument researches. However, it does not include cultural demands, and lacks scientific significance. CCIs have all its virtues, and add solutions to the latter's theory bottleneck and scientific debates, thus bringing increased benefits to clinical assessment in complementary and alternative medicine researches.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chinese culture; Chinese medicine; clinical outcome assessment; instrument; patient-reported outcome; value

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27041333     DOI: 10.1007/s11655-016-2494-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin J Integr Med        ISSN: 1672-0415            Impact factor:   1.978


  10 in total

Review 1.  Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.

Authors:  Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  [Application and prospect of scale measurement and appraisal in the assessment in TCM therapeutic efficacy evaluation].

Authors:  Feng-Bin Liu
Journal:  Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi       Date:  2007-12

Review 3.  [On the necessity of developing quality of life instruments in traditional Chinese medicine].

Authors:  Zheng-kun Hou; Feng-bin Liu; Ying-yu Liang; Kun-hai Zhuang; Chu-hua Lin; Li-juan Li
Journal:  Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao       Date:  2011-05

4.  Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension.

Authors:  Melanie Calvert; Jane Blazeby; Douglas G Altman; Dennis A Revicki; David Moher; Michael D Brundage
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Literature review and analysis of the application of health outcome assessment instruments in Chinese medicine.

Authors:  Feng-bin Liu; Zheng-kun Hou; Yun-ying Yang; Pei-wu Li; Qian-wen Li; Nelson Xie; Jing-wei Li; Xiang-jing Zeng
Journal:  J Integr Med       Date:  2013-05

6.  Complementary alternative medicine, plausibility and statistics.

Authors:  Lex Rutten; Erik Stolper
Journal:  Eur J Intern Med       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 4.487

7.  Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL).

Authors: 
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Literature review and analysis of the development of health outcomes assessment instruments in Chinese medicine.

Authors:  Feng-bin Liu; Zheng-kun Hou; Yun-ying Yang; Zheng-zheng Zhang; Di Xie; Nelson Xie; Hong Thach Nguyen
Journal:  J Integr Med       Date:  2013-03

9.  Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001.

Authors:  Catherine Acquadro; Rick Berzon; Dominique Dubois; Nancy Kline Leidy; Patrick Marquis; Dennis Revicki; Margaret Rothman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 3.186

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.