Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2010 Jun;31(3):225-40. doi: 10.1007/s11017-010-9142-0.
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess multiple facets of healthcare, including effectiveness, side effects of treatment, symptoms, health care needs, quality of care, and the evaluation of health care options. There are thousands of these measures and yet there is very little discussion of their theoretical underpinnings. In her 2008 Presidential address to the Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQoL), Professor Donna Lamping challenged researchers to grapple with the theoretical issues that arise from these measures. In this paper, I attempt to do so by arguing for an analogy between PROMs and Hans-Georg Gadamer's logic of question and answer. While researchers readily admit that the constructs involved in PROMs are imperfectly understood and lack a gold standard, they often ignore the consequences of this fact. Gadamer's work on questions and their importance to philosophical hermeneutics helps to show that the questions researchers ask about such constructs are also imperfectly understood. I argue that these questions should not be standardized, and I instead propose a theoretical framework that understands PROMs as posing genuine questions to respondents--questions that are open to reinterpretation.
患者报告的结局测量(PROMs)越来越多地被用于评估医疗保健的多个方面,包括治疗的有效性、副作用、症状、医疗保健需求、护理质量以及医疗保健选择的评估。有数千种这样的测量方法,但几乎没有讨论它们的理论基础。在她 2008 年向国际生活质量研究学会(ISOQoL)发表的主席演讲中,唐娜·兰平教授向研究人员提出了应对这些措施所带来的理论问题的挑战。在本文中,我试图通过将 PROMs 与汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔的问答逻辑进行类比来做到这一点。虽然研究人员承认 PROMs 所涉及的结构理解不完美,缺乏黄金标准,但他们往往忽略了这一事实的后果。加达默尔关于问题及其对哲学解释学的重要性的工作有助于表明,研究人员对这些结构提出的问题也理解不完美。我认为这些问题不应该标准化,而是应该提出一个理论框架,将 PROMs 理解为向受访者提出真正的问题——这些问题可以重新解释。