Skip to main content

Health Measurement, Industry, and Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Philosophical Issues in Pharmaceutics

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 122))

  • 363 Accesses

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now common endpoints in clinical trials. In 2009 in an effort to standardize and streamline their use in medical product labeling, the FDA published FDA Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. This publication drew attention to the need to ensure that PROMs are methodologically sound. Nonetheless, in this paper I discuss how many of these measures continue to fall short in terms of validity, interpretability, and responsiveness. As a reaction to these shortcomings, researchers increasingly call for the development of more scientific measures. I argue that although improving PROMs’ measurement properties is a worthy endeavor, we should not be uncritical of these attempts. Calling for improved measures in the name of science should not blind us to the way that even our best measures employ values in their development—values that may further the marketing needs of industry. When values are needed to further our scientific ends, it behooves us to examine them in terms of their social consequences. Thus I argue that we ought to consider not only the scientific advances that new PROMs may bring but also the values that are used to develop them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Standard errors are a way of telling from a statistical perspective if x is significantly different from y. If standard errors overlap, this tells us that, in the case of PROMs, two items are similar enough to be indistinguishable.

  2. 2.

    For a longer discussion of the difficulties that CTT has with distinguishing between true scores and measurement error, see McClimans 2017.

References

  • BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Measures). 2006. The International System of Units (SI). Sèvres: BIPM. http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/. Accessed 16 Apr 2015.

  • Cano, S.J., and J.C. Hobart. 2011. The problem with health measurement. Patient Preference and Adherence 5: 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, C. 2007. Denouement: A Patient-Reported Observation. Value in Health 10: S146–S147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Critical Path Institute. 2015. http://c-path.org/about/. Accessed 7 Apr 2015.

  • DeMuro, C., M. Clark, L. Doward, E. Evans, M. Mordin, and A. Gnanasakthy. 2013. Assessment of PRO Label Claims Granted by the FDA as Compared to the EMA (2006–2010). Value in Health 16(8): 1150–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayers, P., and D. Machin. 2007. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Drug Development Tools Qualification Programs > Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/ucm284077.htm. Accessed 7 Apr 2015.

  • Hobart, J.C., S.J. Cano, J.P. Zajicek, and A.J. Thompson. 2007. Rating Scales as Outcome Measures for Clinical Trials in Neurology: Problems, Solutions, and Recommendations. Lancet Neurology 6(12): 1094–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S.M. 1997. The Problem of Quality of Life. Quality of Life Research 6(3): 205–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeschke, R., J. Singer, and G.H. Guyatt. 1989. Measurement of Health Status. Ascertaining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Contemporary Clinical Trials 10(4): 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClimans, L. 2010a. Towards Self-Determination in Quality of Life Research: A Dialogic Approach. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 13(1): 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010b. A Theoretical Framework for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31(3): 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Interpretability, Validity, and the Minimum Important Difference. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32(6): 389–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Measurement in Medicine and Beyond: Quality of Life, Blood Pressure and Time. In Reasoning in Measurement, ed. N. Mößner and A. Nordmann. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClimans, L., and J.P. Browne. 2012. Quality of Life Is a Process Not an Outcome. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33(4): 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, C.E., and M.A. Sprangers. 1999. Methodological Approaches for Assessing Response Shift in Longitudinal Health-Related Quality-of-Life Research. Social Science & Medicine 48(11): 1531–1548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. 2007. Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry? PLoS Medicine 4(9): e286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S., and M. Doucet. 2010. Publication Ethics and the Ghost Management of Medical Publication. Bioethics 24(6): 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S., and S.H. Nicholson. 2009. Publication Planning 101. Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences 12(3): 273–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenner, A.J., and M. Smith. 1982. Testing Construct Theories. Perceptual and Motor Skills 55(2): 415–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D.L., and G.R. Norman. 2008. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tal, E. 2011. How Accurate Is the Standard Second? Philosophy in Science 78(5): 1082–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taminiau-Bloem, E.F., F.J. Van Zuuren, M. Visser, C. Tishelman, C.E. Schwartz, M.A. Koeneman, C. Koning, and M. Sprangers. 2011. Opening the Black Box of Cancer Patients’ Quality-of-Life Change Assessments: A Think-Aloud Study Examining the Cognitive Processes Underlying Responses to Transition Items. Psychology & Health 26(11): 1414–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwee, C.B., F.W. Dekker, W.M. Wiersinga, M.F. Prummel, and P. Bossuyt. 2003. On Assessing Responsiveness of Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments: Guidelines for Instrument Evaluation. Quality of Life Research 12(4): 349–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyrwich, K.W., and V.M. Tardino. 2006. Understanding Global Transition Assessments. Quality of Life Research 15(6): 995–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah McClimans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McClimans, L. (2017). Health Measurement, Industry, and Science. In: Ho, D. (eds) Philosophical Issues in Pharmaceutics. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 122. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0979-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics