Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
The paper proposes that frameworks typical to metaphysics and art could be used in clinical treatment in somatic and psychiatric contexts to ensure improved care. The concept of the "body electric" of somatic patients which I introduced in previous work is developed further and paired with the "mind electric" of psychiatric patients. Both are defined as a patient's personally generated metaphysical possibility of being healthy-within-illness which is experientially actualized. ⋯ An argument against the idea implied by the hope for such mass treatments and corresponding overreliance on science, namely, that health comes from fixing and regularizing, is developed based on cultural history and the evidenced fact that personally assumed health, just like art and metaphysics, is transgressive of scientific data, and accommodates the untrue, the impossible or the irregular as actual and normal. Because normality is created only with the help of disorder and from within it for chronic patients, clinicians should offer them the metaphysical care they need to produce and actualize their possibility of irregular normality or their body/mind electric. Better treatments can only be provided when scientific advances will be matched with advances in the humanistic competence of clinicians.
-
When evidence-based medicine (EBM) became established, its dominant rhetoric was empiricist, in spite of rationalist elements in its practice. Exploring some of the key statements about EBM down the years, the paper examines the tensions between empiricism and rationalism and argues for a rationalist turn in EBM to help to develop the next generation of scholarship in the field.
-
For over 30 years, "evidence-based" clinical guidelines remained entrenched in an oversimplified, design-based, framework for rating the strength of evidence supporting clinical recommendations. The approach frequently equated the rating of evidence with that of the recommendations themselves. "Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)" has emerged as a proposed antidote to obsolete guideline methodology. GRADE sponsors and collaborators are in the process of attempting to amplify and extend the framework to encompass implementation and adaptation of guidelines, above and beyond the evaluation and rating of clinical research. ⋯ It also identifies dangers inherent in blurring important boundaries between clinical and policy applications of guidelines. Finally, it addresses criticisms regarding the lack of a theoretical framework supporting the different facets of the GRADE approach and proposes a social constructivist orientation to clinical guideline development and use. Recommendations are offered to potential guideline developers and users regarding how to draw upon the strengths of the GRADE framework without succumbing to its pitfalls.
-
As a clinician, I can easily agree with the author that a person's own reality of being healthy is independent of physical evidence or clinical categories and that this perspective should be considered to improve clinical care. However, I cannot follow the assumptions about the nature and working of modern medicine and psychiatry as typically using "black box" and one-size-fits-all treatments in daily practice. I outline several working contexts of doctors where this criticism does only marginally apply or not at all and wonder whether the author might wish, if possible at all from a philosophical viewpoint, to differentiate her concepts with regard to these different contexts. In addition, I think that ill health in the field of psychiatry might have to be dealt with differently than physical ill health.
-
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.