Evidence and outcomes: agendas, presuppositions and power

Abstract

This paper explores philosophical and methodological issues involved in determining 'What counts as making a meaningful difference?'--the fundamental question in health outcomes research and evidence-based practice. Eight diverse stakeholders are identified along with the competing agendas they bring to the debate. The power to define what counts as meaningful change in health status is typically rooted in disciplinary socialization, linguistic traditions and an orthodox consensus that circumscribes acceptable research foci and methods. The various implicit assumptions and sites of definitional authority have consequences both for health researchers and for the public being served. For researchers, their designs may be driven by available instrumentation, short political time lines, and statistical rather than clinical significance. Because methods to capture salient health outcomes are still being developed, failure to capture significant outcomes may be methodological in origin. The public may experience the consequences of subsequent programmatic funding decisions and the exclusionary potential of different categorization schemes. Despite this, the public seldom has a voice in deciding what constitutes a meaningful health outcome. Researchers are urged to involve their target population in designing studies to help rebalance relative stakeholder power, and to consider the consequences of their methodological decisions.

The Effects of an Early Physical Therapy Intervention for Very Preterm, Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

“…However, it may also be seen as a strength of this study that the results obtained can be directly applied to the typical clinical situation. 80 This study has also demonstrated that at four months CA, the AIMS only detected two (17%) of the 12 infants with CP from the preterm group, highlighting that its use in the detection of preterm infants with abnormal motor development at four months CA may be limited. This is contradictory to the findings of Darrah et al 57 The use of additional or alternative motor assessments (eg, the TIMP) in future studies is recommended.…”

Consequences of stroke, arthritis and chronic pain—are there important similarities?

“…7 -10 Indeed, the public are rarely included in the debate about what constitutes 'meaningful health outcomes'. 11 A number of studies propose the importance of an 'insider perspective' for considering outcome i.e., that perspective which is derived from the experience of the person living with a disability, focuses on psychosocial impacts concerning perceptions of the self, relationships with others and life meaning. 10, 12 -15 At least on some levels, this contrasts starkly with a more stereotypically biomedical view (or 'outsider perspective') where the concern is more disease focused aiming to determine diagnosis and intervention at the level of impairment or perhaps disability.…”

‘Clear as Mud’: Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research

“…A further positioning occurs through disciplinary socialization to particular research approaches (Ray, 1999). Disciplinary socialization occurs when a researcher receives his or her research training within a disciplinary culture or setting where a particular approach is well known and accepted.…”