One of the issues that struck me with this article was how definitions come into play, and how these definitions can impact research outcomes. The authors mention on p. 304 that, although "the most frequently investigated personal aspects of primary care quality were continuity and communication," "the definition of continuity varied from study to study." Even though we may have a standardized definition of quality from Donabedian's work, his model led to the use of definitions in other studies, and these definitions may be defined using other definitions, none of which seem to have a standardized definition in the industry. Although the authors might define the terms they’re using in an individual paper, these definitions are often quite varied across studies. The result of this seems to be that, in order to analyze potentially related studies, a scale or system of categories must be imposed, such as that in the literature review. I wonder how much this might possibly alter or misrepresent results from original data, or whether it has any effect at all. Is there a need to standardize definitions of these often nebulous terms? Will we see more of this in the future (if it isn’t already out there)?
One of the issues that struck me with this article was how definitions come into play, and how these definitions can impact research outcomes. The authors mention on p. 304 that, although "the most frequently investigated personal aspects of primary care quality were continuity and communication," "the definition of continuity varied from study to study." Even though we may have a standardized definition of quality from Donabedian's work, his model led to the use of definitions in other studies, and these definitions may be defined using other definitions, none of which seem to have a standardized definition in the industry. Although the authors might define the terms they’re using in an individual paper, these definitions are often quite varied across studies. The result of this seems to be that, in order to analyze potentially related studies, a scale or system of categories must be imposed, such as that in the literature review. I wonder how much this might possibly alter or misrepresent results from original data, or whether it has any effect at all. Is there a need to standardize definitions of these often nebulous terms? Will we see more of this in the future (if it isn’t already out there)?
ReplyDelete