探索患者、护理人员和健康公众生活质量的主观建构:一项q -方法学研究。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Zhuxin Mao, Aureliano Paolo Finch, Shenaz Ahmed, Guangjie Zhang, Yifan Ding, Zhihao Yang
{"title":"探索患者、护理人员和健康公众生活质量的主观建构:一项q -方法学研究。","authors":"Zhuxin Mao, Aureliano Paolo Finch, Shenaz Ahmed, Guangjie Zhang, Yifan Ding, Zhihao Yang","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-04045-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore similarities and differences in perceptions of quality of life (QoL) outcome, among different groups of populations, including patients, informal carers and the healthy general publics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used Q-methodology, which combined both qualitative and quantitative components, to investigate the subjective constructions of QoL across the groups. We developed a list of 35 Q-sample items and collected a total of 151 Q-sort data for use in the standard by-person factor analytic procedure designed for Q-methodology. We also conducted post-sort interviews and obtained qualitative information about why the participants ranked the statements in certain ways.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We were able to identify four distinct viewpoints: Factor 1: Eat, sleep and other basic needs; Factor 2: Positive relationships, belongings and well-being; Factor 3: My own physical and mental health first; Factor 4: Physical health is the foundation of well-being. While Factor 4 was equally valued across all three categories of participants, Factor 2, which places a high value on positive relationships, was predominantly represented by carers. In contrast, patients tended to emphasise Factor 3, which focuses on individual feelings-particularly emotional and physical distress. Items related to pain, discomfort, and sleep were consistently identified as the most important across all four identified views.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study presents the similarities and differences of the subjective constructions of QoL across patients, carers and the healthy general publics. It implies the variances of preferences in evaluating QoL, and such variances can consequently affect the measurement and evaluation of QoL.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study.\",\"authors\":\"Zhuxin Mao, Aureliano Paolo Finch, Shenaz Ahmed, Guangjie Zhang, Yifan Ding, Zhihao Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-025-04045-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore similarities and differences in perceptions of quality of life (QoL) outcome, among different groups of populations, including patients, informal carers and the healthy general publics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used Q-methodology, which combined both qualitative and quantitative components, to investigate the subjective constructions of QoL across the groups. We developed a list of 35 Q-sample items and collected a total of 151 Q-sort data for use in the standard by-person factor analytic procedure designed for Q-methodology. We also conducted post-sort interviews and obtained qualitative information about why the participants ranked the statements in certain ways.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We were able to identify four distinct viewpoints: Factor 1: Eat, sleep and other basic needs; Factor 2: Positive relationships, belongings and well-being; Factor 3: My own physical and mental health first; Factor 4: Physical health is the foundation of well-being. While Factor 4 was equally valued across all three categories of participants, Factor 2, which places a high value on positive relationships, was predominantly represented by carers. In contrast, patients tended to emphasise Factor 3, which focuses on individual feelings-particularly emotional and physical distress. Items related to pain, discomfort, and sleep were consistently identified as the most important across all four identified views.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study presents the similarities and differences of the subjective constructions of QoL across patients, carers and the healthy general publics. It implies the variances of preferences in evaluating QoL, and such variances can consequently affect the measurement and evaluation of QoL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-04045-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-04045-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨不同人群(包括患者、非正式护理人员和健康公众)对生活质量(QoL)结果认知的异同。方法:本研究采用定性和定量相结合的q -方法学,对各群体生活质量的主观建构进行研究。我们开发了一个包含35个q -样本项目的列表,并收集了总共151个q -排序数据,用于为q -方法学设计的标准逐人因子分析程序。我们还进行了排序后的访谈,并获得了关于参与者为什么以某种方式对陈述进行排序的定性信息。结果:我们能够确定四个不同的观点:因素一:饮食,睡眠和其他基本需求;因素2:积极的人际关系、财产和幸福;因素三:本人身心健康第一;因素4:身体健康是幸福的基础。虽然因素4在所有三类参与者中都得到了同样的重视,但因素2,即高度重视积极关系的因素,主要由照顾者代表。相比之下,患者倾向于强调因素3,它侧重于个人感受——尤其是情绪和身体上的痛苦。在所有四种观点中,与疼痛、不适和睡眠相关的项目始终被认为是最重要的。结论:本研究揭示了患者、护理人员和健康公众对生活质量主观建构的异同。它暗示了在评价生活质量时偏好的差异,这种差异会影响生活质量的测量和评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study.

Purpose: To explore similarities and differences in perceptions of quality of life (QoL) outcome, among different groups of populations, including patients, informal carers and the healthy general publics.

Methods: This study used Q-methodology, which combined both qualitative and quantitative components, to investigate the subjective constructions of QoL across the groups. We developed a list of 35 Q-sample items and collected a total of 151 Q-sort data for use in the standard by-person factor analytic procedure designed for Q-methodology. We also conducted post-sort interviews and obtained qualitative information about why the participants ranked the statements in certain ways.

Results: We were able to identify four distinct viewpoints: Factor 1: Eat, sleep and other basic needs; Factor 2: Positive relationships, belongings and well-being; Factor 3: My own physical and mental health first; Factor 4: Physical health is the foundation of well-being. While Factor 4 was equally valued across all three categories of participants, Factor 2, which places a high value on positive relationships, was predominantly represented by carers. In contrast, patients tended to emphasise Factor 3, which focuses on individual feelings-particularly emotional and physical distress. Items related to pain, discomfort, and sleep were consistently identified as the most important across all four identified views.

Conclusions: This study presents the similarities and differences of the subjective constructions of QoL across patients, carers and the healthy general publics. It implies the variances of preferences in evaluating QoL, and such variances can consequently affect the measurement and evaluation of QoL.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信