Thor Hennelund Nielsen, Lasse Nielsen, Søren Harnow Klausen
{"title":"规范主义者-自然主义者之谜:健康评估工具的功能和假设。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The normativist-naturalist puzzle: Functions and assumptions of health assessment tools.
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.
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.