Premium
Interpreting health outcomes
Author(s) -
Davies Huw Talfryn Oakley,
Crombie Iain Kinloch
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00003.x
Subject(s) - enthusiasm , health care , appeal , subject (documents) , medicine , public relations , psychology , nursing , political science , social psychology , computer science , library science , law
Interest in outcomes is universal. To patients, good outcomes represent their highest hopes for therapy; to health care professionals, good outcomes are the desired end‐point of a complex web of care. More recently, politicians and health care managers too have shifted their emphasis away from health service activity and towards what is termed ‘health gain’. The rise of the outcomes movement appears irresistible. However, the difficulties in interpreting outcomes data will not go away. Outcomes measured using routine data are subject to numerous biases and many practical difficulties. Despite recent statistical, methodological and technological advances, comparisons of outcomes at best provide us with weak evidence of either the effectiveness or the quality of health care. And sometimes they may frankly mislead. The apparent intuitiveness of outcomes monitoring has broad public appeal. But enthusiasm for outcomes needs to be tempered with a clear understanding of their limitations.