Literature DB >> 30456714

Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens.

Jae Yung Kwon1, Sally Thorne2, Richard Sawatzky3,4,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) increasingly become key outcome indicators in health care, there has been growing concern about the potential negative consequences that could result when interpretations are being made to inform clinical and policy decisions. Therefore, we explored theoretical issues, assumptions, and consequences of using PROMs from a philosophical point of view.
METHODS: Our analysis of the literature was informed by Gadamerian hermeneutics, which emphasizes the dialectical processes that occur during interpretation, to provide insights as to how different users interpret and use standardized questions about health and quality of life.
RESULTS: We structured our consideration according to three tenets of using PROMs: (1) the use of PROMs involves the interpretation of contextual elements; (2) interpretation of PROMs is an ongoing dialectical interaction; and (3) the use of PROMs involves openness and reflexivity. These findings suggest that hermeneutics provides a useful approach to examining the complexities of measuring patient-reported outcomes by attending to the perspectives of different users (e.g., patients, clinicians, administrators, and policy-makers) at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels and the broader socio-historical and economic situation.
CONCLUSION: Because PROMs can have different meanings and are used for different purposes, we propose that hermeneutics be used as a lens to ask reflexive questions about the problems of measurement and open a pluralistic dialogue with respect to the way we use PROMs and the interpretations we make of the findings that derive from our studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Consequences; Hermeneutics; Measurement; Patient-reported outcome measures

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30456714     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-2051-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  20 in total

1.  Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model.

Authors:  M A Sprangers; C E Schwartz
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Doing it the Gadamerian way--using philosophical hermeneutics as a methodological approach in nursing science.

Authors:  Kitt Austgard
Journal:  Scand J Caring Sci       Date:  2012-04-20

3.  How do we close the hermeneutic circle? A Gadamerian approach to justification in interpretation in qualitative studies.

Authors:  Jonas Debesay; Dagfinn Nåden; Ashild Slettebø
Journal:  Nurs Inq       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.393

4.  Philosophical perspectives on response shift.

Authors:  Leah McClimans; Jerome Bickenbach; Marjan Westerman; Licia Carlson; David Wasserman; Carolyn Schwartz
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-10-28       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Influence of response shift on evaluations of change in patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Sara Ahmed; Lena Ring
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.217

6.  The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds.

Authors:  G L Albrecht; P J Devlieger
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Interpretability, validity, and the minimum important difference.

Authors:  Leah McClimans
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2011-12

Review 8.  Patient participation in the consultation process: a structured review of intervention strategies.

Authors:  Kirstie Haywood; Susan Marshall; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2006-01-06

9.  Response shift masks the treatment impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs): the example of individual quality of life in edentulous patients.

Authors:  Lena Ring; Stefan Höfer; Frank Heuston; David Harris; Ciaran A O'Boyle
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-09-07       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Uses and abuses of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs): potential iatrogenic impact of PROMs implementation and how it can be mitigated.

Authors:  Miranda Wolpert
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2014-03
View more
  6 in total

1.  A philosophical perspective on the development and application of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs).

Authors:  Keith Ashton Meadows
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-10-17       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Using feedback tools to enhance the quality and experience of care.

Authors:  Jan R Boehnke; Claudia Rutherford
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ).

Authors:  Melanie Hawkins; Christina Cheng; Gerald R Elsworth; Richard H Osborne
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 4.  Questionnaire validation practice within a theoretical framework: a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments.

Authors:  Melanie Hawkins; Gerald R Elsworth; Elizabeth Hoban; Richard H Osborne
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Implications of response shift for micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making using results of patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Richard Sawatzky; Jae-Yung Kwon; Ruth Barclay; Cynthia Chauhan; Lori Frank; Wilbert B van den Hout; Lene Kongsgaard Nielsen; Sandra Nolte; Mirjam A G Sprangers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures: a commentary to The Response Shift-in Sync Working Group initiative.

Authors:  Mirjam A G Sprangers; Tolulope Sajobi; Antoine Vanier; Nancy E Mayo; Richard Sawatzky; Lisa M Lix; Frans J Oort; Véronique Sébille
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 4.147

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.