Cited by 133Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Health outcomes assessment in vulnerable populations: measurement challenges and recommendations

Hahn, Elizabeth A., Cella, David·2003·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

With growing recognition that some population subgroups are particularly vulnerable to receiving suboptimal health care and achieving poor health outcomes, innovative techniques are required for collecting and evaluating health outcomes data. Research is also needed to better understand the causal pathways linking vulnerability with health outcomes. This article focuses on patients with a chronic illness (cancer) who also have low literacy and/or poor English language skills. We summarize the association among literacy, language, ethnicity, and health outcomes; describe innovative technologies to enhance communication; and discuss the advantages of using psychometric measurement models in health outcomes assessment. Results from our ongoing research projects are presented, including the development of an audiovisual computer-based testing platform for self-administration of questionnaires. Such innovative multimedia technologies allow patients with limited or even no reading ability to participate in outcomes assessment and have the potential to be incorporated into a clinical setting with minimal burden on staff and patients. Appropriate methods are also needed to evaluate measurement equivalence across diverse patient groups, that is, the extent to which items in a questionnaire perform similarly across groups. Item response theory measurement models provide a strategy for differentiating between measurement bias and real differences that may exist between groups. Recommendations for clinical practice and research are offered specifically to address medically underserved and vulnerable populations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/apmr.2003.50245

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hahn, E. A., & Cella, D.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-04
Volume
84
Issue
4 Suppl 2
Pages
S35-S42
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059667061
Cited by
133
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
22.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS10333)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01 CA61679, R01CA061679)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
health outcome measurement, vulnerable populations, low health literacy, limited English proficiency, cancer patients, ethnicity, measurement invariance, item response theory, self-administered questionnaire, medically underserved populations, health communication technology
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Chronic Disease, Communication Barriers, Educational Status, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Neoplasms, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Sickness Impact Profile, Cultural Diversity, Multimedia, Vulnerable Populations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review