Health outcomes methodology symposium - Summary and recommendations

Authors
Citation
Kn. Lohr, Health outcomes methodology symposium - Summary and recommendations, MED CARE, 38(9), 2000, pp. 194-208
Citations number
27
Categorie Soggetti
Public Health & Health Care Science","Health Care Sciences & Services
Journal title
MEDICAL CARE
ISSN journal
00257079 → ACNP
Volume
38
Issue
9
Year of publication
2000
Supplement
S
Pages
194 - 208
Database
ISI
SICI code
0025-7079(200009)38:9<194:HOMS-S>2.0.ZU;2-2
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Interest in the philosophy and techniques of the assessment of health outcomes has burgeoned, prompting research funding agencies and othe rs to examine traditional and emerging methods for outcome measurement. OBJECTIVES. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions at and research recommendations stemming from an invitational symposium on health outcomes methodology convened in September 1999. RESEARCH DESIGN. The summary is based on the preliminary drafts of all form al reports and discussions, transcripts of all presentations and plenary di scussions, and notes from breakout groups. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. Existing health outcomes measures drawn from class ic test theory and emerging approaches based on item response theory offer exciting opportunities for appreciably expanded applications in biomedical and health services research, clinical practice and decision making, and po licy development. The major research agenda reflects the significance of th is field of endeavor, its widening acceptance both at home and abroad, and its increasing applicability to many different patient and user communities . Of particular moment are the following: (1) refining and expanding of mea surement techniques that rely on item response theory and making these appr oaches more understandable to potential users; (2) improving measurement to ols to make them more culturally appropriate for diverse populations and mo re conceptually and psychometrically equivalent across such groups; (3) add ressing longstanding issues in preference- and utility-based approaches, pa rticularly in the elicitation of preference responses and scoring instrumen ts; and (4) enhancing the ways in which data from outcomes measurement tool s are calibrated against commonly understood clinical and lay metrics, are interpreted, and are made usable for different decision-makers.