Response shift in patient-reported outcomes: definition, theory, and a revised model.

PURPOSE: The extant response shift definitions and theoretical response shift models, while helpful, also introduce predicaments and theoretical debates continue. To address these predicaments and stimulate empirical research, we propose a more specific formal definition of response shift and a revised theoretical model. METHODS: This work is an international collaborative effort and involved a critical assessment of the literature. RESULTS: Three main predicaments were identified. First, the formal definitions of response shift need further specification and clarification. Second, previous models were focused on explaining change in the construct intended to be measured rather than explaining the construct at multiple time points and neglected the importance of using at least two time points to investigate response shift. Third, extant models do not explicitly distinguish the measure from the construct. Here we define response shift as an effect occurring whenever observed change (e.g., change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) scores) is not fully explained by target change (i.e., change in the construct intended to be measured). The revised model distinguishes the measure (e.g., PROM) from the underlying target construct (e.g., quality of life) at two time points. The major plausible paths are delineated, and the underlying assumptions of this model are explicated. CONCLUSION: It is our hope that this refined definition and model are useful in the further development of response shift theory. The model with its explicit list of assumptions and hypothesized relationships lends itself for critical, empirical examination. Future studies are needed to empirically test the assumptions and hypothesized relationships.

Objectives and outcomes of clinical ethics services: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the objectives and outcomes most appropriate for evaluating clinical ethics support services (CESs) in the USA. METHODS: A three-round e-Delphi was sent to two professional medical ethics listservs (Medical College of Wisconsin-Bioethics and American Society for Bioethics and Humanities) as well as 19 individual experts. The survey originally contained 15 objectives and 9 outcomes. In round 1, participants were asked to validate the content of these lists. In round 2, we had 17 objectives and 10 outcomes, and participants were asked to rank them for appropriateness in a top 10 list of objectives and a top 5 list of outcomes. RESULTS: Participants came to a high(at least 70%) level of agreement on seven objectives: mediate, educate, develop policy, improve the moral quality of a decision or action, counsel, create a moral space and manage moral distress. Participants came to a moderate (at least 51%) level of agreement on three objectives: empower, awareness of ethics and preventative ethics. Participants also came to a moderate (at least 51%) level of agreement on five outcomes: ethical justification, transformation of institution, improvement of quality of life, principled consensus and satisfaction with the expertise of a CES. CONCLUSION: This e-Delphi identified 10 objectives and 5 outcomes that are a good starting point for developing outcome measures to evaluate CESs in the USA, while reminding us of the diversity of perspectives still evident in the field.

Clinical outcome measurement: Models, theory, psychometrics and practice.

In the last decade much has been made of the role that models play in the epistemology of measurement. Specifically, philosophers have been interested in the role of models in producing measurement outcomes. This discussion has proceeded largely within the context of the physical sciences, with notable exceptions considering measurement in economics. However, models also play a central role in the methods used to develop instruments that purport to quantify psychological phenomena. These methods fall under the umbrella term 'psychometrics'. In this paper, we focus on Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) and discuss two measurement theories and their associated models: Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Rasch Measurement Theory. We argue that models have an important role to play in coordinating theoretical terms with empirical content, but to do so they must serve: 1) as a representation of the measurement interaction; and 2) in conjunction with a theory of the attribute in which we are interested. We conclude that Rasch Measurement Theory is a more promising approach than CTT in these regards despite the latter's popularity with health outcomes researchers.

Moral Expertise in the Clinic: Lessons Learned from Medicine and Science.

Philosophers and others have questioned whether or not expertise in morality is possible. This debate is not only theoretical, but also affects the perceived legitimacy of clinical ethicists. One argument against moral expertise is that in a pluralistic society with competing moral theories no one can claim expertise regarding what another ought morally to do. There are simply too many reasonable moral values and intuitions that affect theory choice and its application; expertise is epistemically uniform. In this article, we discuss how similar concerns have recently threatened to undermine expertise in medicine and science. In contrast, we argue that the application of values is needed to exercise medical, scientific, and moral expertise. As long as these values are made explicit, worries about a pretense to authority in the context of a liberal democracy are ill-conceived. In conclusion, we argue for an expertise that is epistemically diverse.

Mobile Phone-Based Confidential Social Network Referrals for HIV Testing (CONSORT): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical to efforts to end the HIV epidemic is the identification of persons living with HIV who have yet to be diagnosed and engaged in care. Expanded HIV testing outreach efforts need to be both efficient and ambitious, targeting the social networks of persons living with HIV and those at above-average risk of undiagnosed HIV infection. The ubiquity of mobile phones across many high HIV prevalence settings has created opportunities to leverage mobile health (mHealth) technologies to engage social networks for HIV testing outreach, prevention, and treatment. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the acceptability and efficacy of a novel mHealth intervention, "Confidential Social Network Referrals for HIV Testing (CONSORT)," to nudge at-risk individuals to test for HIV using SMS text messages. METHODS: We will conduct the CONSORT study in Moshi, Tanzania, the commercial center and administrative capital of the Kilimanjaro Region in northern Tanzania. After qualitative formative work and pilot testing, we will enroll 400 clients presenting for HIV counseling and testing and 200 persons living with HIV and receiving care at HIV care and treatment centers as "inviters" into a randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants will be aged 18 years or older and live, work, or regularly receive care in Moshi. We will randomize inviters into 1 of 2 study arms. All inviters will be asked to complete a survey of their HIV testing and risk behaviors and to think of social network contacts who would benefit from HIV testing. They will then be asked to whom they would prefer to extend an HIV testing invitation in the form of a physical invitation card. Arm 1 participants will also be given the opportunity to extend CONSORT invitations in the form of automated confidential SMS text messages to any of their social network contacts or "invitees." Arm 2 participants will be offered physical invitation cards alone. The primary outcome will be counselor-documented uptake of HIV testing by invitees within 30 days of inviter enrollment. Secondary outcomes will include the acceptability of CONSORT among inviters, the number of new HIV diagnoses, and the HIV risk of invitees who present for testing. RESULTS: Enrollment in the randomized controlled trial is expected to start in September 2024. The findings will be disseminated to stakeholders and published in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: If CONSORT is acceptable and effective for increasing the uptake of HIV testing, given the minimal costs of SMS text reminders and the potential for exponential but targeted growth using chain referrals, it may shift current practices for HIV testing programs in the area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov NCT05967208; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05967208. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55068.

Philosophical perspectives on response shift.

PURPOSE: This paper brings a philosophical perspective to response shift research with the aim of raising new critical questions, clarifying some of the concepts employed, and providing a philosophical context within which to critically examine the assumptions that shape the field. METHODS: This critical analysis aims to reveal assumptions and clarify concepts and/or definitions that undergird methodological practice and theory. RESULTS: We bring attention to the distinction of weak and strong evaluations, and the implications and consequences for construct validity and for designing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We then consider the epistemology of PROMs, suggesting that they are better suited to a social constructivist approach than a scientific realist one. Finally, we examine the relationship between disability and response shift, arguing that in at least some cases, response shifts should not be understood as 'measurement bias'. CONCLUSION: Our analysis reveals various concerns and further questions related to the role that substantive values play in the assessment of QoL. It also draws response shift into a wider arena, with broader issues of interpretation, self-evaluation, the meaning of the 'good life', and the status and legitimacy we accord to various scientific methods.

The role of measurement in establishing evidence.

Measurement outcomes are frequently used as evidence in favor of or against medical and surgical interventions, health policies, and system designs. Indeed, in the medical and health services research literature, outcomes are the currency of policy debate and decision making. Yet in the philosophy of science and philosophy of medicine, the measures used in evidence-based medicine (EBM) are rarely discussed. Rather, the focus here is almost exclusively on study design and hierarchies of evidence. This concentration on the methodology of study design has meant that for practical purposes the measures used in randomized controlled trials, observational studies, audits, and so forth, appear as a "black box." Yet as I argue in the first part of this article, an engagement with measurement can improve our understanding of EBM and the quality of our evidence. In the second part of the article, I develop such an engagement with one aspect of measurement, namely, the validity of patient-reported outcome measures. Here, I illustrate some of the complexity that is required to improve the validity of these measures and hence the validity of our study outcomes, that is, evidence. The concentration in philosophy of science on study design over measurement methodology perhaps reveals the interest that many philosophers of medicine have in causation, but there is more to the production of high-quality scientific evidence than securing the causal inference.

Development of clinical ethics services in the UK: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: In 2001 a report on the provision of clinical ethics support in UK healthcare institutions identified 20 clinical ethics committees. Since then there has been no systematic evaluation or documentation of their work at a national level. Recent national surveys of clinical ethics services in other countries have identified wide variation in practice and scope of activities. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current provision of ethics support in the UK and its development since 2001. METHOD: A postal/electronic questionnaire survey administered to the chairs of all 82 clinical ethics services registered with the UK Clinical Ethics Network in July 2010. RESULTS: Response rate was 62% with the majority of responding services situated in acute trusts. All services included a clinical ethics committee with one service also having a clinical ethicist. Lay members were present in 72% of responding committees. Individual case consultation has increased since 2001 with 29% of chairs spending more than 50% of their time on this. Access to and involvement in the process of case consultation is less for patients and families than for clinical staff. There is wide variation in committee processes and levels of institutional support. Over half of the responding committees undertook some form of evaluation. CONCLUSION: Clinical ethics services in the UK are increasing as is their involvement in case consultation. However, the significant variation in committee processes suggests that further qualitative research is needed to understand how these committees function and the role they play in their institution.

Can UK clinical ethics committees improve quality of care?

Failings in patient care and quality in NHS Trusts have become a recurring theme over the past few years. In this paper, we examine the Care Quality Commission's Guidance about Compliance: Essential Standards of Quality and Safety and ask how NHS Trusts might be better supported in fulfilling the regulations specified therein. We argue that clinical ethics committees (CECs) have a role to play in this regard. We make this argument by attending to the many ethical elements that are highlighted in the Commission's Regulations and by providing practical examples of how CECs can (and in some case already do) provide ethics support to health professionals and trusts. Although CECs have been traditionally associated with case consultation, i.e., discrete problems caused by individual circumstances, in the previous 10 years the literature suggests that clinical ethics services have become more integrated into the life of the health care organization and are increasing construed as proactive agents of systematic change. We provide evidence from a recent survey of UK clinical ethics services that this trend is present in the UK.

Elective twin reductions: evidence and ethics.

Twelve years ago the British media got wind of a London gynecologist who performed an elective reduction on a twin pregnancy reducing it to a singleton. Perhaps not surprisingly, opinion on the moral status of twin reductions was divided. But in the last few years new evidence regarding the medical risks of twin pregnancies has emerged, suggesting that twin reductions are relevantly similar to the reductions performed on high-end multi-fetal pregnancies. This evidence has appeared to resolve the moral debate. In this paper I look at the role of clinical evidence in medical ethics. In particular I examine the role of clinical evidence in determining what counts as a significant harm or risk. First, I challenge the extent to which these empirical claims are descriptive, suggesting instead that the evidence is to some degree normative in character. Second, I question whether such empirical claims should count as evidence for what are essentially difficult ethical decisions - a role they appear to play in the case of elective reductions. I will argue that they should not, primarily because the value-laden nature of this evidence conceals much of what is ethically at stake. It is important to recognize that empirical evidence cannot be a substitute for ethical deliberation.

Towards self-determination in quality of life research: a dialogic approach.

Health-related quality of life measures aim to assess patients' subjective experience in order to gauge an increasingly wide variety of health care issues such as patient needs; satisfaction; side effects; quality of care; disease progression and cost effectiveness. Their popularity is undoubtedly due to a larger initiative to provide patient-centered care. The use of patient perspectives to guide health care improvements and spending is rooted in the idea that we must respect patients as self-determining agents. In this paper I look at the two main orientations to quality of life measurement: standardized and individualized measures. I argue that while these measures are attempts to provide for patient self-determination, they both fail to do so. In their place I suggest a new approach which overcomes their respective difficulties: a dialogic approach.

A Qualitative Study of US Clinical Ethics Services: Objectives and Outcomes.

The quality of clinical ethics services in health care organizations is increasingly seen as an important aspect of the overall quality of care. But measuring this quality is difficult because there is a lack of clarity and consensus regarding the objectives of clinical ethics and the best outcome domains to measure. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore the views of experts about the objectives and outcomes of clinical ethics services in the US. We interviewed 19 experts in clinical ethics, focusing on the appropriate objectives and outcomes of a clinical ethics service (CES). Participants were selected using a purposive snowball sampling strategy. The development of the interview protocol was informed by the clinical ethics literature as well as by research and theories that inform clinical ethics practice. Interviews were conducted by phone, recorded, and transcribed for individual analysis. Analysis proceeded through the development of a codebook of categories using QDA Miner software. Our experts identified 12 objectives and nine outcomes. Some of these identifications were familiar (e.g., mediation and satisfaction) and some were novel (e.g., be of service and transformation). We found that experts are divided in their emphasis on the kinds of objectives that are most important. In terms of outcomes, our experts were concerned with the appropriateness of different proxy and direct measures. This study provides the perspectives of a select group of experts on the objectives and outcomes appropriate for a CES in the United States. The themes identified will be used in future research to inform a Delphi study to refine and obtain expert consensus.

Quality of life is a process not an outcome.

Quality improvement mechanisms increasingly use outcome measures to evaluate health care providers. This move toward outcome measures is a radical departure from the traditional focus on process measures. More radical still is the proposal to shift from relatively simple and proximal measures of outcome, such as mortality, to complex outcomes, such as quality of life. While the practical, scientific, and ethical issues associated with the use of outcomes such as mortality and morbidity to compare health care providers have been well rehearsed, the specific concerns associated with the use of quality of life measures in quality of care research have received little attention. As with much research on quality of life there is a tendency to assume that the disadvantages are outweighed by the general virtue of "listening" to patients. In this paper we disagree with this assumption and argue that quality of life is a process, not an outcome.

Interpretability, validity, and the minimum important difference.

Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used as dependent variables in studies regarding the effectiveness of clinical interventions. But patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) do not provide intuitively meaningful data. For instance, it is not clear what a five point increase or decrease on a particular scale signifies. Establishing 'interpretability' involves making changes in outcomes meaningful. Attempts to interpret PROMs have led to the development of methods for identifying a minimum important difference (MID). In this paper, however, I draw on Charles Taylor's distinction between weak and strong evaluations to suggest that identifying a MID, specifically, a MID that uses a patient-reported reference group, may not provide an adequate interpretation of these measures. Moreover, I argue that the difficulty with interpreting these measures is tied to a larger problem concerning their validity. If researchers wish to interpret PROMs, they may first need to know more about the constructs they attempt to measure, namely, quality of life.

Choosing a patient-reported outcome measure.

There has been much philosophical interest regarding the 'hierarchy of evidence' used to determine which study designs are of most value for reporting on questions of effectiveness, prognosis, and so on. There has been much less philosophical interest in the choice of outcome measures with which the results of, say, an RCT or a cohort study are presented. In this paper, we examine the FDA's recently published guidelines for assessing the psychometric adequacy of patient-reported outcome measures. We focus on their recommendations for demonstrating content validity and also for how researchers should weigh up the sum of psychometric evidence when choosing these measures. We argue that questions regarding judgment and understanding meaning of these measures should play a more central role in determining their adequacy.

Health policy, patient-centred care and clinical ethics.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Patient-centred care has been a central part of US and UK health policy for over a decade, but, despite its importance, the policy literature often fails to provide an adequate theoretical justification for why and how we should value it. This omission is problematic because it renders the status, content and appropriate evaluation of patient-centredness unclear. In this paper we aim to examine two different accounts of patient-centred care. METHOD: We draw upon methods of conceptual and ethical analysis. RESULTS: We argue that neither of the two accounts of patient-centred care identified appropriately grounds patient-centredness because neither of them takes into account the inherently moral nature of terms such as 'respect' and 'dignity', terms that are central to discussions of patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that clinical ethics can help to provide a theoretical justification for patient-centred care, and that clinical ethical practices can further patient-centred initiatives through ethics consultation, education and policy development and review.

A theoretical framework for patient-reported outcome measures.

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.