Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Historical Article
Psychiatry's contribution to the public stereotype of schizophrenia: Historical considerations.
The public stereotype of schizophrenia is characterized by craziness, a split personality, unpredictable and dangerous behaviour, and by the idea of a chronic brain disease. It is responsible for delays in help-seeking, encourages social distance and discrimination, and furthers self-stigmatization. ⋯ In a strange conglomerate, the modern operational diagnostic criteria reflect all three approaches, by claiming to be Neo-Kraepelinean in terms of defining a categorical disease entity with a suggestion of chronicity, by keeping Bleuler's ambiguous term schizophrenia, and by relying heavily on Kurt Schneider's hallucinations and delusions. While interrater reliability may have improved with operational diagnostic criteria, the definition of schizophrenia is still arbitrary and has no empirical validity-but induces stigma.
-
Medical scientists have expressed scepticism about whether philosophy is relevant to medicine. We challenged this in a conference on the topic of "too much medicine" (TMM) held in Oxford in April 2017. The topic of TMM provided an opportunity to bring the two disciplines together because of its history both in philosophy and in medicine. ⋯ First, both disciplines had to avoid discipline-specific jargon. Second, each discipline had to engage with the other. Specifically, medical scientists had to engage with some philosophical literature, and philosophers had to "get their hands dirty with data." In this conference report, we provide an overview of our discussions and summarize the other papers in the series.
-
The role of mechanistic evidence tends to be under-appreciated in current evidence-based medicine (EBM), which focusses on clinical studies, tending to restrict attention to randomized controlled studies (RCTs) when they are available. The EBM+ programme seeks to redress this imbalance, by suggesting methods for evaluating mechanistic studies alongside clinical studies. ⋯ Nevertheless, we argue that mechanistic evidence is central to all the key tasks in the drug approval process: in drug discovery and development; assessing pharmaceutical quality; devising dosage regimens; assessing efficacy, harms, external validity, and cost-effectiveness; evaluating adherence; and extending product licences. We recommend that, when preparing for meetings in which any aspect of drug approval is to be discussed, mechanistic evidence should be systematically analysed and presented to the committee members alongside analyses of clinical studies.
-
The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework has undergone several modifications since it was first presented as a method for developing clinical practice recommendations. In the previous two articles of this series, we showed that absent, in the first three versions of GRADE, is a justification (theoretical and/or empirical) for why the presented criteria for determining the quality of evidence and the components for determining the strength of a recommendation were included (and others not included) in the framework. Furthermore, it was often not clear how to operationalize and integrate the criteria/components when using the framework. In part 3 of this series, we examine the literature since version 3 to see if the GRADE working group has provided an overall justification scheme for GRADE or clear instruction on how to operationalize and integrate the criteria/components in the framework. ⋯ If we desire that our clinical recommendations be based on scientific teaching rather than faith-based preaching, then the GRADE framework should be justified theoretically and/or empirically. Until such time that the working group provides a theoretical justification that the use of the GRADE framework should produce valid recommendations, and/or empirical evidence to support that it does, enthusiasm for the framework should be tempered.
-
Racial discrimination has been increasingly reported to have a causal link with morbidity and mortality of Black Americans, yet this issue is rarely addressed in a public health perspective. Racism affects health at different levels: institutional racism is a structural and legalized system that results in differential access to health services; cultural racism refers to the negative racial stereotypes, often reinforced by media, that results in poorer psychological and physiological wellbeing of the minorities. Lastly, interpersonal racism refers to the persistence of racial prejudice that seriously undermines the doctor-patient relationship. ⋯ This study represents an important milestone in the application of public health on racial injustices, yet racism must be tackled with a sustained, multilevel, and interdisciplinary approach. In conclusion, this paper addresses how public health interventions can empower Black minorities and bring forward long-term policies. Racism is a structural and long-standing system that can be eliminated only with the collective effort.