Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2009

01-04-2009

Disability meanings according to patients and clinicians: imagined recovery choice pathways

Auteurs: Margaret G. Stineman, Pamela M. Rist, Jibby E. Kurichi, Greg Maislin

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2009

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to explore how the meaning of disability varies between patients with acute-onset activity limitations and clinicians, and between males and females.

Methods

Seventy-nine patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation and 93 practicing rehabilitation clinicians in the USA developed personal recovery choice pathways through recovery preference exploration (RPE). Imagining complete dependence in 18 activities as diverse as eating and expression, each individual determined an optimal sequence of recovery. This sequence was used to determine the relative value of each activity compared with the other 17. Three comparisons were made by calculating the mean absolute difference (MAD) in median utilities, including patients versus clinicians, male versus female patients, and male versus female clinicians. The MAD shows the relative magnitude of disparity between each pair.

Results

The MAD value between patients and clinicians was 3.4 times larger and 4.8 times larger than the MAD values between male and female patients and male and female clinicians, respectively.

Conclusions

The much larger difference in recovery preferences between patients and clinicians compared with differences between genders suggests that life contexts of being a patient with disabilities versus a clinician are more potent determinants of activity limitation perspectives than being a man or woman.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Baron, J., Asch, D. A., Fagerlin, A., Jepson, C., Loewenstein, G., Riis, J., et al. (2003). Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: A web study. Medical Decision Making, 23, 422–434. doi: 10.​1177/​0272989X03257277​. PubMedCrossRef Baron, J., Asch, D. A., Fagerlin, A., Jepson, C., Loewenstein, G., Riis, J., et al. (2003). Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: A web study. Medical Decision Making, 23, 422–434. doi: 10.​1177/​0272989X03257277​. PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Sprangers, M. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1992). The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: A review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 743–760. doi: 10.​1016/​0895-4356(92)90052-O. PubMedCrossRef Sprangers, M. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1992). The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: A review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 743–760. doi: 10.​1016/​0895-4356(92)90052-O. PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12, 599–607. doi: 10.​1023/​A:​1025119931010. PubMedCrossRef Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12, 599–607. doi: 10.​1023/​A:​1025119931010. PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
7.
go back to reference Nagel, E. (1979). Structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Indianapolis: Hackett. Nagel, E. (1979). Structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Indianapolis: Hackett.
9.
go back to reference Mattingly, C., & Fleming, M. (1994). Clinical reasoning. Forms of inquiry in a therapeutic process. Philadelphia: FA Davis. Mattingly, C., & Fleming, M. (1994). Clinical reasoning. Forms of inquiry in a therapeutic process. Philadelphia: FA Davis.
11.
go back to reference Thorne, S., & McCormick, J. (1997). Deconstructing the gender neutrality of chronic illness and disability. Health Care for Women International, 18, 1–16. PubMedCrossRef Thorne, S., & McCormick, J. (1997). Deconstructing the gender neutrality of chronic illness and disability. Health Care for Women International, 18, 1–16. PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Stineman, M. G., Maislin, G., Nosek, M., Fiedler, R., & Granger, C. V. (1998). Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: Application of a new feature trade-off consensus building tool. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1522–1529. doi: 10.​1016/​S0003-9993(98)90413-0. PubMedCrossRef Stineman, M. G., Maislin, G., Nosek, M., Fiedler, R., & Granger, C. V. (1998). Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: Application of a new feature trade-off consensus building tool. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1522–1529. doi: 10.​1016/​S0003-9993(98)90413-0. PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
go back to reference Stineman, M. G., Ross, R. N., Maislin, G., Marchuk, N., Hijirida, S., & Weiner, M. (2007). Recovery preference exploration: Analysis of patient feedback after imagined scenarios. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 272–281. doi: 10.​1097/​PHM.​0b013e3180383acb​. PubMedCrossRef Stineman, M. G., Ross, R. N., Maislin, G., Marchuk, N., Hijirida, S., & Weiner, M. (2007). Recovery preference exploration: Analysis of patient feedback after imagined scenarios. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 272–281. doi: 10.​1097/​PHM.​0b013e3180383acb​. PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Katz, S., Ford, A. B., Moskowitz, R. W., Jackson, B. A., & Jaffe, M. W. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged: The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 914–919. PubMed Katz, S., Ford, A. B., Moskowitz, R. W., Jackson, B. A., & Jaffe, M. W. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged: The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 914–919. PubMed
17.
go back to reference Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., Keith, R. A., Zielezny, M., & Sherwin, F. S. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1, 59–74. Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., Keith, R. A., Zielezny, M., & Sherwin, F. S. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1, 59–74.
18.
go back to reference Hamilton, B. B., Granger, C. V., Sherwin, F. S., Zielezny, M., & Tashman, J. S. (1987). A Uniform National Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hamilton, B. B., Granger, C. V., Sherwin, F. S., Zielezny, M., & Tashman, J. S. (1987). A Uniform National Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
22.
go back to reference Sox, H. C., Blatt, M. A., Higgins, M. C., & Marton, K. I. (1988). Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworth. Sox, H. C., Blatt, M. A., Higgins, M. C., & Marton, K. I. (1988). Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworth.
23.
go back to reference Stineman, M. G., Rist, P., & Burke, J. (2009). Through the clinician’s lens: Objective and subjective views of disability. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 17–29. PubMedCrossRef Stineman, M. G., Rist, P., & Burke, J. (2009). Through the clinician’s lens: Objective and subjective views of disability. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 17–29. PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., Wright, B. D., Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B. (1994). The structure and stability of the functional independence measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 127–132. PubMed Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., Wright, B. D., Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B. (1994). The structure and stability of the functional independence measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 127–132. PubMed
25.
go back to reference Stineman, M. G., Shea, J. A., Jette, A., Tassoni, C. J., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fiedler, R., et al. (1996). The functional independence measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 1101–1108. doi: 10.​1016/​S0003-9993(96)90130-6. PubMedCrossRef Stineman, M. G., Shea, J. A., Jette, A., Tassoni, C. J., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fiedler, R., et al. (1996). The functional independence measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 1101–1108. doi: 10.​1016/​S0003-9993(96)90130-6. PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Bunch, W. H., & Dvonch, V. M. (1994). The “value” of functional independence measure scores. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 40–43. PubMedCrossRef Bunch, W. H., & Dvonch, V. M. (1994). The “value” of functional independence measure scores. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 40–43. PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Stineman, M. G., Kurz, A. E., Kelleher, D., & Kennedy, B. L. (2007). The patient’s view of recovery: An emerging tool for empowerment through self-knowledge. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 1–10. Stineman, M. G., Kurz, A. E., Kelleher, D., & Kennedy, B. L. (2007). The patient’s view of recovery: An emerging tool for empowerment through self-knowledge. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 1–10.
33.
go back to reference Ditunno, P. L., Patrick, M., Stineman, M., Morganti, B., Townson, A. F., & Ditunno, J. F. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in preference for recovery of mobility among spinal cord injury rehabilitation professionals. Spinal Cord, 44, 567–575. doi: 10.​1038/​sj.​sc.​3101876. PubMedCrossRef Ditunno, P. L., Patrick, M., Stineman, M., Morganti, B., Townson, A. F., & Ditunno, J. F. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in preference for recovery of mobility among spinal cord injury rehabilitation professionals. Spinal Cord, 44, 567–575. doi: 10.​1038/​sj.​sc.​3101876. PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Browne, J. P., O’Boyle, C. A., McGee, H. M., Joyce, C. B., McDonald, N. J., O’Malley, K., et al. (1994). Individual quality of life in the healthy elderly. Quality of Life Research, 3, 235–244. doi: 10.​1007/​BF00434897. PubMedCrossRef Browne, J. P., O’Boyle, C. A., McGee, H. M., Joyce, C. B., McDonald, N. J., O’Malley, K., et al. (1994). Individual quality of life in the healthy elderly. Quality of Life Research, 3, 235–244. doi: 10.​1007/​BF00434897. PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Donnelly, C., Eng, J. J., Hall, J., Alford, L., Giachino, R., Norton, K., et al. (2004). Client-centred assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 42, 302–307. doi: 10.​1038/​sj.​sc.​3101589. PubMedCrossRef Donnelly, C., Eng, J. J., Hall, J., Alford, L., Giachino, R., Norton, K., et al. (2004). Client-centred assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 42, 302–307. doi: 10.​1038/​sj.​sc.​3101589. PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Disability meanings according to patients and clinicians: imagined recovery choice pathways
Auteurs
Margaret G. Stineman
Pamela M. Rist
Jibby E. Kurichi
Greg Maislin
Publicatiedatum
01-04-2009
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9441-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2009

Quality of Life Research 3/2009 Naar de uitgave