Quality of Life Research

, 18:389 | Cite as

Disability meanings according to patients and clinicians: imagined recovery choice pathways

  • Margaret G. Stineman
  • Pamela M. Rist
  • Jibby E. Kurichi
  • Greg Maislin



The purpose of this study was to explore how the meaning of disability varies between patients with acute-onset activity limitations and clinicians, and between males and females.


Seventy-nine patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation and 93 practicing rehabilitation clinicians in the USA developed personal recovery choice pathways through recovery preference exploration (RPE). Imagining complete dependence in 18 activities as diverse as eating and expression, each individual determined an optimal sequence of recovery. This sequence was used to determine the relative value of each activity compared with the other 17. Three comparisons were made by calculating the mean absolute difference (MAD) in median utilities, including patients versus clinicians, male versus female patients, and male versus female clinicians. The MAD shows the relative magnitude of disparity between each pair.


The MAD value between patients and clinicians was 3.4 times larger and 4.8 times larger than the MAD values between male and female patients and male and female clinicians, respectively.


The much larger difference in recovery preferences between patients and clinicians compared with differences between genders suggests that life contexts of being a patient with disabilities versus a clinician are more potent determinants of activity limitation perspectives than being a man or woman.


Activities of daily living Decision making Patient-centered care Patient care team Quality of life 



Recovery preference exploration


Mean absolute difference


International classification of functioning, disability, and health


World Health Organization


Quality of life


Functional Independence Measure


Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life


Canadian Occupational Performance Measure


Personal Computer



This research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health grant R21 HD045881 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The opinions of the authors are not necessarily those of the supporting agencies.


  1. 1.
    Baron, J., Asch, D. A., Fagerlin, A., Jepson, C., Loewenstein, G., Riis, J., et al. (2003). Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: A web study. Medical Decision Making, 23, 422–434. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03257277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sprangers, M. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1992). The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: A review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 743–760. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90052-O.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12, 599–607. doi: 10.1023/A:1025119931010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach, J. R., & Barnett, V. (1994). Ethical considerations in the management of individuals with severe neuromuscular disorders. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 134–140. doi: 10.1097/00002060-199404000-00012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bach, J. R., & Tilton, M. C. (1994). Life satisfaction and well-being measures in ventilator assisted individuals with traumatic tetraplegia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 626–632. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90183-X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagel, E. (1979). Structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, M., & Gordon, W. A. (2004). Empowerment in measurement: “Muscle,” “voice,” and subjective quality of life as a gold standard. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, S13–S20. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mattingly, C., & Fleming, M. (1994). Clinical reasoning. Forms of inquiry in a therapeutic process. Philadelphia: FA Davis.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groce, N. E. (1999). Disability in cross-cultural perspective: Rethinking disability. Lancet, 354, 756–757. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)06140-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thorne, S., & McCormick, J. (1997). Deconstructing the gender neutrality of chronic illness and disability. Health Care for Women International, 18, 1–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stineman, M. G., Maislin, G., Nosek, M., Fiedler, R., & Granger, C. V. (1998). Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: Application of a new feature trade-off consensus building tool. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1522–1529. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90413-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurz, A. E., Saint-Louis, N., Burke, J., & Stineman, M. G. (2008). Exploring the personal reality of disability and recovery: A tool for empowering the rehabilitation process. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 90–105. doi: 10.1177/1049732307309006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stineman, M. G., Ross, R. N., Maislin, G., Marchuk, N., Hijirida, S., & Weiner, M. (2007). Recovery preference exploration: Analysis of patient feedback after imagined scenarios. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 272–281. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3180383acb.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kogan, S. M., & Gale, J. E. (1997). Decentering therapy: Textual analysis of a narrative therapy session. Family Process, 36, 101–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1997.00101.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz, S., Ford, A. B., Moskowitz, R. W., Jackson, B. A., & Jaffe, M. W. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged: The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 914–919.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., Keith, R. A., Zielezny, M., & Sherwin, F. S. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1, 59–74.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamilton, B. B., Granger, C. V., Sherwin, F. S., Zielezny, M., & Tashman, J. S. (1987). A Uniform National Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rist, P. M., Freas, D. W., Maislin, G., & Stineman, M. G. (2008). Recovery from disablement: What functional abilities do rehabilitation professionals value the most? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1600–1606. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.060.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 593–600. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90019-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 14. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sox, H. C., Blatt, M. A., Higgins, M. C., & Marton, K. I. (1988). Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stineman, M. G., Rist, P., & Burke, J. (2009). Through the clinician’s lens: Objective and subjective views of disability. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 17–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., Wright, B. D., Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B. (1994). The structure and stability of the functional independence measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 127–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stineman, M. G., Shea, J. A., Jette, A., Tassoni, C. J., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fiedler, R., et al. (1996). The functional independence measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 1101–1108. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90130-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fonteyn, M., Kuipers, B., & Grobe, S. (1993). A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 430–441. doi: 10.1177/104973239300300403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bunch, W. H., & Dvonch, V. M. (1994). The “value” of functional independence measure scores. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 40–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stineman, M. G., Kurz, A. E., Kelleher, D., & Kennedy, B. L. (2007). The patient’s view of recovery: An emerging tool for empowerment through self-knowledge. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 1–10.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norman, G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 239–249. doi: 10.1023/A:1023211129926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00045-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stineman, M. G. (2001). A model of health environmental integration. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 8, 34–45. doi: 10.1310/0L5G-NQHY-GH4K-HV58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ditunno, P. L., Patrick, M., Stineman, M., & Ditunno, J. F. (2008). Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord, 46, 500–506. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ditunno, P. L., Patrick, M., Stineman, M., Morganti, B., Townson, A. F., & Ditunno, J. F. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in preference for recovery of mobility among spinal cord injury rehabilitation professionals. Spinal Cord, 44, 567–575. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Browne, J. P., O’Boyle, C. A., McGee, H. M., Joyce, C. B., McDonald, N. J., O’Malley, K., et al. (1994). Individual quality of life in the healthy elderly. Quality of Life Research, 3, 235–244. doi: 10.1007/BF00434897.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Joyce, C. R., Hickey, A., McGee, H. M., & O’Boyle, C. A. (2003). A theory-based method for the evaluation of individual quality of life: The SEIQoL. Quality of Life Research, 12, 275–280. doi: 10.1023/A:1023273117040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Donnelly, C., Eng, J. J., Hall, J., Alford, L., Giachino, R., Norton, K., et al. (2004). Client-centred assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 42, 302–307. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret G. Stineman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pamela M. Rist
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jibby E. Kurichi
    • 1
  • Greg Maislin
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSchool of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Leonard Davis Institute of Health EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of EpidemiologyHarvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  6. 6.Division of Sleep MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  7. 7.Biomedical Statistical ConsultingWynnewoodUSA

Personalised recommendations