Pols Jeannette, Limburg Sarah
Department of General Practice, Section of Medical Ethics, Academic Medical Centre, Postbus 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cult Med Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;40(3):361-82. doi: 10.1007/s11013-015-9479-y.
Although people often refer to quality of life and there is a respectable research tradition to establish it, the meaning of the term is unclear. In this article we qualitatively study an intervention of which the quantitative effects are documented as indecisive. We do this in order to learn more about what the meaning of the term quality of life means when it is studied in daily life. With the help of these findings we reflect on the intricacies of objectifying and measuring quality of life using quantitative research designs. Our case is the feeding tube for patients suffering from ALS, a severe motor neuron disease that rapidly and progressively incapacitates patients. We studied how these patients, who lived in the Netherlands, anticipated and lived with a feeding tube in the course of their physical deterioration. Our analysis shows that the quality of life related to the feeding tube has to be understood as a process rather than as an outcome. The feeding tube becomes a different thing as patients move through the various phases of their illness, due to changes in their condition, living circumstances, and concerns and values. There are very different appreciations of the way the feeding tube changes the body's appearance and feel. Some patients refuse it because they feel it disfigures their body, whereas others are indifferent to its appearance. Our conclusion is that these differences are difficult to grasp with a quantitative study designs because 'matters of taste' and values are not distributed in a population in the same ways as physiological responses to medication. Effect studies assume physiological responses to be more or less the same for everyone, with only gradual differences. Our analysis of quality in daily life, however, shows that what a treatment comes to be and how it is valued shows shows generalities for subgroups rather than populations.
尽管人们经常提及生活质量,并且有一个值得尊敬的研究传统来确立它,但该术语的含义并不明确。在本文中,我们对一项干预措施进行了定性研究,其定量效果尚无定论。我们这样做是为了更多地了解在日常生活中研究生活质量这一术语时它的含义是什么。借助这些发现,我们反思了使用定量研究设计来客观化和衡量生活质量的复杂性。我们的案例是针对患有肌萎缩侧索硬化症(ALS)的患者的饲管,这是一种严重的运动神经元疾病,会迅速且逐渐使患者丧失能力。我们研究了这些生活在荷兰的患者在身体衰退过程中如何预期并使用饲管生活。我们的分析表明,与饲管相关的生活质量必须被理解为一个过程而非结果。随着患者经历疾病的各个阶段,由于他们的病情、生活环境以及关注点和价值观的变化,饲管会变成不同的东西。对于饲管改变身体外观和感觉的方式存在非常不同的看法。一些患者拒绝它,因为他们觉得它会毁容,而另一些患者则对其外观漠不关心。我们的结论是,这些差异很难用定量研究设计来把握,因为“品味问题”和价值观在人群中的分布方式与对药物的生理反应不同。效果研究假设每个人对药物的生理反应大致相同,只有逐渐的差异。然而,我们对日常生活中质量的分析表明,一种治疗最终会变成什么以及它如何被重视,显示出的是亚组而非总体的一般性情况。