Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
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.
-
The evidence based medicine movement has championed the need for objective and transparent methods of clinical guideline development. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was developed for that purpose. Central to this framework is criteria for assessing the quality of evidence from clinical studies and the impact that body of evidence should have on our confidence in the clinical effectiveness of a therapy under examination. ⋯ Finally, the GRADE method is unclear on how to integrate evidence grades with other important factors, such as patient preferences, and trade-offs between costs, benefits, and harms when proposing a clinical practice recommendation. Much of the GRADE method requires judgement on the part of the user, making it unclear as to how the framework reduces bias in recommendations or makes them more transparent-both goals of the programme. It is our view that the issues presented in this paper undermine GRADE's justificatory scheme, thereby limiting the usefulness of GRADE as a tool for developing clinical recommendations.
-
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.
-
Comment
How to make a particular case for person-centred patient care: A commentary on Alexandra Parvan.
In recent years, a person-centred approach to patient care in cases of mental illness has been promoted as an alternative to a disease orientated approach. Alexandra Parvan's contribution to the person-centred approach serves to motivate an exploration of the approach's most apt metaphysical assumptions. I argue that a metaphysical thesis or assumption about both persons and their uniqueness is an essential element of being person-centred. I apply the assumption to issues such as the disorder/disease distinction and to the continuity of mental health and illness.
-
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.