Literature DB >> 31485914

Viewing assessments of patient-reported heath status as conversations: Implications for developing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures.

Kevin P Weinfurt1.   

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used in research to reflect the patient's perspective. In this commentary, I argue that further improvements can be made in how we develop and evaluate PROMs by viewing assessment as a type of conversation. Philosophically speaking, a PROM assessment can be conceptualized as a formal conversation that serves as a model of an informal, longer, and more nuanced conversation with a research participant about their health experience. Psychologically speaking, evidence from research in survey methodology and discursive psychology shows that respondents to self-report measures behave in ways consistent with the idea that they are doing their best to participate in a conversation, albeit an unusual one. Several suggestions are offered for creating a better conversational context through study materials and PROM instructions, and by improving the yield of cognitive interviews. It is hoped that this commentary can stimulate further discussions in our field regarding how to integrate insights about the conversational nature of assessment from survey research and discursive psychology to better reflect the patient's voice in research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive interviews; Discursive psychology; Patient-reported outcomes; Philosophy; Qualitative methods; Survey methods; Theory

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31485914     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02285-8

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


  6 in total

1.  A theoretical framework for patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Leah McClimans
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2010-06

2.  The culture of faith and hope: patients' justifications for their high estimations of expected therapeutic benefit when enrolling in early phase oncology trials.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy; Alan B Astrow; M Kai He; Damon M Seils; Neal J Meropol; Ellyn Micco; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Towards self-determination in quality of life research: a dialogic approach.

Authors:  Leah McClimans
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2009-03-10

4.  Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening.

Authors:  David Cella; Elizabeth A Hahn; Kelly Dineen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Using cognitive interviews to evaluate items for measuring sexual functioning across cancer populations: improvements and remaining challenges.

Authors:  Alice K Fortune-Greeley; Kathryn E Flynn; Diana D Jeffery; Megan S Williams; Francis J Keefe; Bryce B Reeve; Gordon B Willis; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review.

Authors:  Darren A DeWalt; Nan Rothrock; Susan Yount; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.983

  6 in total
  1 in total

1.  Development of a Conceptual Framework of Sexual Well-being for Women with Physical Disability.

Authors:  Mara B Nery-Hurwit; Claire Z Kalpakjian; Jodi M Kreschmer; Elisabeth H Quint; Susan Ernst
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2022-03-23
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.