Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
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.
-
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.