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

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 explor...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Quality of life research 2019-03, Vol.28 (3), p.629-636
Hauptverfasser: Kwon, Jae Yung, Thorne, Sally, Sawatzky, Richard
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 636
container_issue 3
container_start_page 629
container_title Quality of life research
container_volume 28
creator Kwon, Jae Yung
Thorne, Sally
Sawatzky, Richard
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11136-018-2051-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2136058075</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48704930</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48704930</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-4d16c651c38e7c0a87eecb2f226086c25f7619690c95d81f3248ebc82902826b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM2KFDEURoMoTs_oA7hQAm7cRG9-K1nKoM7AgBsFdyGdujXdTVWlTFIL3940NY7gwtWF5Hxfbg4hrzi85wDdh8I5l4YBt0yA5sw9ITuuO8mEUe4p2YEzgjmp5AW5LOUEANaBeE4uJChtOq525MftXDEvGWuoxzTTMPd0LUjTQJd2gnNlGZeUK_Y0rTWmCemEoawZC62HnNb7Aw10ORzHVFIbMYx0xLm8IM-GMBZ8-TCvyPfPn75d37C7r19urz_esSidqkz13ESjeZQWuwjBdohxLwYhDFgThR46w51xEJ3uLR-kUBb30Yr2ESvMXl6Rd1vvktPPFUv107FEHMcwY1qLF80QaAudbujbf9BTWvPctjtTWjWbjjeKb1TMqZSMg1_ycQr5l-fgz9r9pt037f6s3buWefPQvO4n7B8Tfzw3QGxAaVfzPea_T_-v9fUWOpWa8mOpsh0oJ0H-BptAljQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2135411191</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Kwon, Jae Yung ; Thorne, Sally ; Sawatzky, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Jae Yung ; Thorne, Sally ; Sawatzky, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-9343</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-2051-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30456714</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Clinical outcomes ; COMMENTARY ; Dialectics ; Health care ; Health Status ; Hermeneutics ; Humans ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Public Health ; Quality of Life ; Quality of Life Research ; Sociology</subject><ispartof>Quality of life research, 2019-03, Vol.28 (3), p.629-636</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018</rights><rights>Quality of Life Research is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-4d16c651c38e7c0a87eecb2f226086c25f7619690c95d81f3248ebc82902826b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-4d16c651c38e7c0a87eecb2f226086c25f7619690c95d81f3248ebc82902826b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0336-7348</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48704930$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48704930$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30456714$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Jae Yung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorne, Sally</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawatzky, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens</title><title>Quality of life research</title><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>COMMENTARY</subject><subject>Dialectics</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Status</subject><subject>Hermeneutics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><issn>0962-9343</issn><issn>1573-2649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM2KFDEURoMoTs_oA7hQAm7cRG9-K1nKoM7AgBsFdyGdujXdTVWlTFIL3940NY7gwtWF5Hxfbg4hrzi85wDdh8I5l4YBt0yA5sw9ITuuO8mEUe4p2YEzgjmp5AW5LOUEANaBeE4uJChtOq525MftXDEvGWuoxzTTMPd0LUjTQJd2gnNlGZeUK_Y0rTWmCemEoawZC62HnNb7Aw10ORzHVFIbMYx0xLm8IM-GMBZ8-TCvyPfPn75d37C7r19urz_esSidqkz13ESjeZQWuwjBdohxLwYhDFgThR46w51xEJ3uLR-kUBb30Yr2ESvMXl6Rd1vvktPPFUv107FEHMcwY1qLF80QaAudbujbf9BTWvPctjtTWjWbjjeKb1TMqZSMg1_ycQr5l-fgz9r9pt037f6s3buWefPQvO4n7B8Tfzw3QGxAaVfzPea_T_-v9fUWOpWa8mOpsh0oJ0H-BptAljQ</recordid><startdate>20190301</startdate><enddate>20190301</enddate><creator>Kwon, Jae Yung</creator><creator>Thorne, Sally</creator><creator>Sawatzky, Richard</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0336-7348</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190301</creationdate><title>Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens</title><author>Kwon, Jae Yung ; Thorne, Sally ; Sawatzky, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-4d16c651c38e7c0a87eecb2f226086c25f7619690c95d81f3248ebc82902826b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>COMMENTARY</topic><topic>Dialectics</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Status</topic><topic>Hermeneutics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Jae Yung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorne, Sally</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawatzky, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kwon, Jae Yung</au><au>Thorne, Sally</au><au>Sawatzky, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens</atitle><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle><stitle>Qual Life Res</stitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><date>2019-03-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>629</spage><epage>636</epage><pages>629-636</pages><issn>0962-9343</issn><eissn>1573-2649</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><pmid>30456714</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11136-018-2051-9</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0336-7348</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0962-9343
ispartof Quality of life research, 2019-03, Vol.28 (3), p.629-636
issn 0962-9343
1573-2649
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2136058075
source Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Clinical outcomes
COMMENTARY
Dialectics
Health care
Health Status
Hermeneutics
Humans
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Public Health
Quality of Life
Quality of Life Research
Sociology
title Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T06%3A32%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interpretation%20and%20use%20of%20patient-reported%20outcome%20measures%20through%20a%20philosophical%20lens&rft.jtitle=Quality%20of%20life%20research&rft.au=Kwon,%20Jae%20Yung&rft.date=2019-03-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=629&rft.epage=636&rft.pages=629-636&rft.issn=0962-9343&rft.eissn=1573-2649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11136-018-2051-9&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48704930%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2135411191&rft_id=info:pmid/30456714&rft_jstor_id=48704930&rfr_iscdi=true