Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Evidence-based standards are fundamental to the practice, funding, and governance of modern medicine. These standards are developed using hierarchies of evidence yet it is often not appreciated that different hierarchies exist and there is a risk that inconsistent standards may be developed depending upon the hierarchy that is used. In this paper, we present four factors, independent of study design, that have led to differences amongst hierarchies. ⋯ We demonstrate that each of these factors has led to the upgrading of expert opinion and/or the downgrading of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses within different hierarchies. Our aim is to raise awareness of factors that have influenced the development of hierarchies. This may make the reader more critical of the processes that are used to develop evidence based standards.
-
Evidence-based medicine announced its entry as heralding a new paradigm in health care practices, but it has been widely criticized for lacking a coherent theoretical basis. This paper presents the first part of a three-article series examining the epistemological, practical, and ethical dimensions of strong EBM, as well as considering alternatives that promise potential solutions to chronic conceptual and practical problems. While the focus is on the details of the arguments and evidence in thoughtful debates over the last 30 years, it is worthwhile to keep in mind the overall trajectory of modern thought, because strong EBM continues discredited positivist positions, thus repeating its major assumptions and inadequacies, now transferred to the medical sphere and vocabulary. Part 1 of the series examines the development of strong EBM by clarifying and critiquing its somewhat discontinuous accounts of scientific knowledge and epistemology, evidence, the differences between statistical probability in regard to populations and understanding the health of individuals, and its claims for direct transfer of research findings to clinical settings-all of which raises more questions regarding its application to provider-patient decision making, pedagogy, and policy.
-
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every facet of society, including medical research. This paper is the second part of a series of articles that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first part of this series, we demonstrated that, in the context of COVID-19, the scientific community has been faced with numerous challenges with respect to (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency. ⋯ The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence-based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community. This second paper demonstrates that the four challenges outlined in the first and second papers have often compounded each other and have contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Conventional models of cultural humility - even those extending analysis beyond the dyad of healthcare provider-patient to include concentric social influences such as families, communities and institutions that make clinical relationships possible - aren't conceptually or methodologically calibrated to accommodate shifts occurring in contemporary biomedical cultures. More complex methodological frameworks are required that are attuned to how advances in biomedical, communications and information technologies are increasingly transforming the very cultural and material conditions of health care and its delivery structures, and thus how power manifests in clinical encounters. ⋯ Engaging evaluative inquiry diffractively allows for a different ethical practice of care, one that attends to the forms of patient and health provider accountability and responsibility emerging in the clinical encounter.