The normativist-naturalist puzzle: Functions and assumptions of health assessment tools.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1177/13634593241255006
Thor Hennelund Nielsen, Lasse Nielsen, Søren Harnow Klausen
{"title":"The normativist-naturalist puzzle: Functions and assumptions of health assessment tools.","authors":"Thor Hennelund Nielsen, Lasse Nielsen, Søren Harnow Klausen","doi":"10.1177/13634593241255006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While there is no shortage in discussions of health assessment tools, little is known about health professionals' experience of their practical uses. However, these tools rely on assumptions that have significant impacts on the practice of health assessment. In this study, we explore health professionals' experiences with health assessment tools, that is, how they define, use, and understand these tools, and whether they take them to measure health and wellbeing. We combine a qualitative, interview-based study of the uses and understandings of health assessment tools among Danish health professionals with a philosophical analysis of these applications and perceptions. Our study shows that contrary assumptions are involved in the use of the tools, to the extent that one can speak of a <i>normativist-naturalist puzzle</i>: health professionals generally apply a normativist conception of health, find health assessment useful and valuable for their clinical practice, but believe that what the tools measure is basically not health proper but some proximal entity of a more naturalist kind. This result demonstrates the complexity of health assessment tools and suggests that they are used with care to ensure both that particular tools are used for the kinds of tasks they are most apt for, and that they are put to use in awareness of their limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":" ","pages":"13634593241255006"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593241255006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While there is no shortage in discussions of health assessment tools, little is known about health professionals' experience of their practical uses. However, these tools rely on assumptions that have significant impacts on the practice of health assessment. In this study, we explore health professionals' experiences with health assessment tools, that is, how they define, use, and understand these tools, and whether they take them to measure health and wellbeing. We combine a qualitative, interview-based study of the uses and understandings of health assessment tools among Danish health professionals with a philosophical analysis of these applications and perceptions. Our study shows that contrary assumptions are involved in the use of the tools, to the extent that one can speak of a normativist-naturalist puzzle: health professionals generally apply a normativist conception of health, find health assessment useful and valuable for their clinical practice, but believe that what the tools measure is basically not health proper but some proximal entity of a more naturalist kind. This result demonstrates the complexity of health assessment tools and suggests that they are used with care to ensure both that particular tools are used for the kinds of tasks they are most apt for, and that they are put to use in awareness of their limitations.

规范主义者-自然主义者之谜:健康评估工具的功能和假设。
虽然关于健康评估工具的讨论并不缺乏,但对卫生专业人员实际使用这些工具的经验却知之甚少。然而,这些工具依赖于对健康评估实践有重大影响的假设。在本研究中,我们探讨了卫生专业人员使用健康评估工具的经验,即他们如何定义、使用和理解这些工具,以及他们是否使用这些工具来衡量健康和福祉。我们对丹麦卫生专业人员使用和理解健康评估工具的情况进行了定性访谈研究,并对这些应用和看法进行了哲学分析。我们的研究表明,在工具的使用过程中存在着相反的假设,甚至可以说是规范主义-自然主义之谜:医疗专业人员普遍采用规范主义的健康概念,认为健康评估对他们的临床实践有用且有价值,但又认为这些工具所测量的基本上不是健康本身,而是某种更自然主义的近似实体。这一结果表明了健康评估工具的复杂性,并建议在使用这些工具时要小心谨慎,既要确保将特定工具用于最适合的任务,又要确保在使用这些工具时认识到它们的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信