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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Quality of life research 2019-03, Vol.28 (3), p.629-636 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |