Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
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.
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.
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). Washington (DC): American Council on Education.
Sawatzky, R., Chan, E. K. H., Zumbo, B. D., Ahmed, S., Bartlett, S. J., Bingham, C. O., … Lix, L. M. (2017). Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series-paper 7: Modern perspectives of measurement validation emphasize justification of inferences based on patient reported outcome scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.002. CrossRefPubMed
Greenhalgh, J., Dalkin, S., Gibbons, E., Wright, J., Valderas, J. M., Meads, D., & Black, N. (2018). How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 23(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617740925. CrossRef
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Debesay, J., Nåden, D., & Slettebø, A. (2008). How do we close the hermeneutic circle? A Gadamerian approach to justification in interpretation in qualitative studies. Nursing Inquiry, 15(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2008.00390.x. CrossRefPubMed
Austgard, K. (2012). Doing it the Gadamerian way—Using philosophical hermeneutics as a methodological approach in nursing science. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 26(4), 829–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.00993.x. CrossRefPubMed
Gadamer, H. G. (1998). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum.
Lix, L. M., Wu, X., Hopman, W., Mayo, N., Sajobi, T. T., Liu, J., … Sawatzky, R. (2016). Differential item functioning in the SF-36 physical functioning and mental health sub-scales: A population-based investigation in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis study. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0151519. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151519. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Krawczyk, M., Sawatzky, R., Schick-Makaroff, K., Stajduhar, K., Öhlen, J., Reimer-Kirkham, S., … Cohen, R. (2018). Micro-meso-macro practice tensions in using patient-reported outcome and experience measures in hospital palliative care. Qualitative Health Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318761366. PubMedCrossRef
Sawatzky, R., Sajobi, T. T., Brahmbhatt, R., Chan, E. K. H., Lix, L. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2017). Longitudinal change in response processes: a response shift perspective. In Understanding and Investigating Response Processes in Validation Research (pp. 251–276). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56129-5_14. CrossRef
Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 48(11), 1507–1515. CrossRef
Ring, L., Höfer, S., Heuston, F., Harris, D., & O’Boyle, C. A. (2005). Response shift masks the treatment impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs): The example of individual quality of life in edentulous patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-55. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science & Medicine ( 1982), 48(8), 977–988. CrossRef
Padilla, J.-L., & Benítez, I. (2017). A rationale for and demonstration of the use of dif and mixed methods. In B. D. Zumbo & A. M. Hubley (Eds.), Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research (pp. 193–209). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56129-5_11. CrossRef
Yagata, K. (2018). Bildung as an essential disposition in becoming a reflective practitioner: Practical application of philosophical hermeneutics to second language teacher education. Reflective Practice, 19(3), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1437409. CrossRef
Saver, B. G., Martin, S. A., Adler, R. N., Candib, L. M., Deligiannidis, K. E., Golding, J., … Topolski, S. (2015). Care that matters: Quality measurement and health care. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001902. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Haywood, K., Marshall, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Patient participation in the consultation process: A structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Education and Counseling, 63(1–2), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.005. CrossRefPubMed
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards.aspx.
DeLuca, C. (2011). Interpretive validity theory: Mapping a methodology for validating educational assessments. Educational Research, 53(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.598659. CrossRef
Moss, P. A. (2005). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00826.x. CrossRef
Hawkins, M., Elsworth, G. R., & Osborne, R. H. (2018). Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Building an argument for validity. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1695–1710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1815-6. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kane, M. (2013). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 448–457.
Dostal, R. (2010). The science of philology and the discipline of hermeneutics: Gadamer’s understanding. Internationales Jahrbuch für Hermeneutik, 53–62.
- Interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures through a philosophical lens
Jae Yung Kwon
- Springer International Publishing