hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Whose quality of life?: ethical implications in patient-reported health outcome measurement
Department of Health Sciences, Lund University. (Forskningsmiljön PRO-CARE)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2174-372X
Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Lund.
Department of Health Sciences, Lund University.
2009 (English)In: Value in Health, ISSN 1098-3015, E-ISSN 1524-4733, Vol. 12, no 4, p. 613-617Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported health status questionnaires intend to assess illness and therapy from the patients' perspective. To provide fair and valid assessments, they should be equally relevant to major subsets of respondents. Furthermore, disease-specific measures are assumed to be perceived as more relevant than generic ones. This study assessed these assumptions among people with Parkinson's disease.

METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 202 people with Parkinson's disease (54% men; mean age, 70) were analyzed regarding patient-rated relevance and predictors of patient-rated poor relevance of two generic [the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP)] and one disease-specific [Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39)] health status questionnaire.

RESULTS: There were no differences in relevance ratings across the questionnaires. Poorer overall quality of life [odds ratio (OR), 2.459] and mental health (OR, 1.023) were associated with poorer patient-rated relevance of the SF-36, and higher age was associated with poorer patient-rated relevance of the PDQ-39 (OR, 1.040). No significant predictors were found for the NHP.

CONCLUSIONS: The PDQ-39 failed to meet the assumption that disease-specific scales are more relevant than generic ones. Nevertheless, the most important implication of this study is an ethical one. Because the relevance of the SF-36 and PDQ-39 is perceived as poorer by those who fare least well and by older people, these scales may not reflect the perspectives of these groups. This challenges bioethical principles and threatens scientific validity. Perceived relevance of patient-centered outcomes needs to be considered, or the voice of vulnerable groups may be silenced, fair inferences prohibited, and opportunities for improved care lost.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 12, no 4, p. 613-617
National Category
Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-12775DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00488.xISI: 000266467800030PubMedID: 19900259OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-12775DiVA, id: diva2:741773
Available from: 2014-08-29 Created: 2014-08-29 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hagell, Peter

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hagell, Peter
In the same journal
Value in Health
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf