Abstract
Abstract
This book has championed the attempt to make measures patient centered. It’s argued not only that these instruments can live up to their claim to “represent patient perspectives” but also that they should. Yet philosophical critiques of both patient-centered approaches and hermeneutic inquiry have argued equally that such an approach may be naive. Why? Because just as patient perspectives can be used to make our measurement practices more sensitive to human needs, they can also be captured by pharmaceutical industries to further their economic ends. Nonetheless, this chapter continues to argue that patient-centered measures are not only possible, but epistemically important and morally virtuous. This position, however, does not suppose the threat pharmaceutical industries pose isn’t real. It is real. This chapter explores this concern and argues the best way to resist these influences is to double down on epistemic dialogue.
Reference299 articles.
1. Appraising Convergent Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Systematic Reviews: Constructing Hypotheses and Interpreting Outcomes.;BMC Research Notes,2016
2. Incorporating the Patient’s Perspective into Drug Development and Communication: An Ad Hoc Task Force Report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonizations Group Meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001.;Value in Health,2003
3. Alcoff, Linda Martín. 2007. “Epistemologies of Ignorance: Three Types.” In Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, edited by Shannon Sullivan and Nancy Tuana, 39–58. New York: SUNY Press.