IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v41y1995i10p1411-1415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health-related quality of life between naturalism and hermeneutics

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenberg, Raben

Abstract

Interest in measuring Quality of life (QOL) in modern medicine has increased considerably in recent years. However, there is no generally agreed definition of QOL, but the term encompasses several constructs, including physical, functional, emotional, social and cognitive domains. A psychometric approach is typically applied, but major problems conceptual confront this tradition. It is argued that QOL research follows a naturalistic tradition in medicine, and that the theoretical status of the QOL concept remains ambiguous. Hence, the more neutral term multidimensional evaluation is suggested as more appropriate than QOL. Hermeneutic thinking with its focus on meaning, understanding and interpretation of the individual placed in a historical and social context is briefly introduced and its role for QOL discussed. A radical hermeneutic position focusing solely on the subjectivity of the individual is rejected, and a balanced view is suggested. Such a view should not ignore that man is a biological organism which can be subjected to naturalistic studies, but it should also take into account those features which constitutes man as a person, e.g. understanding and interpretation. Future QOL research may benefit from an integration of philosophical reflection on health and disease issues and a psychometric tradition.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenberg, Raben, 1995. "Health-related quality of life between naturalism and hermeneutics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1411-1415, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:10:p:1411-1415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00123-O
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:10:p:1411-1415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.