Cargando…
Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept
BACKGROUND: The extent to which a health care intervention causes or facilitates health-related change is a key question in research. The need to quantify such change has led to the development of an increasing number of change indicators, to measure what have come to be known as 'outcomes'...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2712450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19538715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-9-18 |
_version_ | 1782169488168321024 |
---|---|
author | Paterson, Charlotte Baarts, Charlotte Launsø, Laila Verhoef, Marja J |
author_facet | Paterson, Charlotte Baarts, Charlotte Launsø, Laila Verhoef, Marja J |
author_sort | Paterson, Charlotte |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The extent to which a health care intervention causes or facilitates health-related change is a key question in research. The need to quantify such change has led to the development of an increasing number of change indicators, to measure what have come to be known as 'outcomes'. In the context of medical research into the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention the term 'outcomes' has often been interpreted to mean single endpoints with a linear cause and effect link to an external intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we present a critical analysis of the nature and interpretation of the 'outcomes' concept and of the assumptions that underpin it. Drawing on our own work and that of others, we analyse the problems that arise when the concept is applied to complex interventions and discuss the use of other models, such as programme theory, as a basis for alternative conceptualisations for indicators of change. Our analysis demonstrates that the interpretation of 'outcomes' that may be appropriate for clinical trials of pharmaceutical products, is problematic when used in evaluations of complex interventions in areas such as complementary medicine, palliative care, rehabilitation, and health promotion. The 'outcomes' concept may impose inappropriate patterns of thought and meaning. We present alternative models, such as those based on programme theory, which conceptualise health-related change as resulting from the interaction between intervention, process and context over time. In this framework both the intervention and the patient are defined as causal factors, because the result of the treatment is dependent on the resources of the patient – such as the body's ability to heal itself – and the impact of the patient's situation. SUMMARY: Evaluations based on a model such as programme theory will encompass a wide range of health-related changes that include aspects of process, such as new meanings and understanding, as well as longer term changes in health, wellbeing and health-related competences and behaviours. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2712450 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-27124502009-07-18 Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept Paterson, Charlotte Baarts, Charlotte Launsø, Laila Verhoef, Marja J BMC Complement Altern Med Debate BACKGROUND: The extent to which a health care intervention causes or facilitates health-related change is a key question in research. The need to quantify such change has led to the development of an increasing number of change indicators, to measure what have come to be known as 'outcomes'. In the context of medical research into the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention the term 'outcomes' has often been interpreted to mean single endpoints with a linear cause and effect link to an external intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we present a critical analysis of the nature and interpretation of the 'outcomes' concept and of the assumptions that underpin it. Drawing on our own work and that of others, we analyse the problems that arise when the concept is applied to complex interventions and discuss the use of other models, such as programme theory, as a basis for alternative conceptualisations for indicators of change. Our analysis demonstrates that the interpretation of 'outcomes' that may be appropriate for clinical trials of pharmaceutical products, is problematic when used in evaluations of complex interventions in areas such as complementary medicine, palliative care, rehabilitation, and health promotion. The 'outcomes' concept may impose inappropriate patterns of thought and meaning. We present alternative models, such as those based on programme theory, which conceptualise health-related change as resulting from the interaction between intervention, process and context over time. In this framework both the intervention and the patient are defined as causal factors, because the result of the treatment is dependent on the resources of the patient – such as the body's ability to heal itself – and the impact of the patient's situation. SUMMARY: Evaluations based on a model such as programme theory will encompass a wide range of health-related changes that include aspects of process, such as new meanings and understanding, as well as longer term changes in health, wellbeing and health-related competences and behaviours. BioMed Central 2009-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC2712450/ /pubmed/19538715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-9-18 Text en Copyright © 2009 Paterson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Debate Paterson, Charlotte Baarts, Charlotte Launsø, Laila Verhoef, Marja J Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept |
title | Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept |
title_full | Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept |
title_fullStr | Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept |
title_short | Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept |
title_sort | evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2712450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19538715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-9-18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT patersoncharlotte evaluatingcomplexhealthinterventionsacriticalanalysisoftheoutcomesconcept AT baartscharlotte evaluatingcomplexhealthinterventionsacriticalanalysisoftheoutcomesconcept AT launsølaila evaluatingcomplexhealthinterventionsacriticalanalysisoftheoutcomesconcept AT verhoefmarjaj evaluatingcomplexhealthinterventionsacriticalanalysisoftheoutcomesconcept |