Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Medical schools and residency programs have become very adept at teaching medical students and residents an enormous amount of information. However, it is much less clear whether they are effective at fostering virtuous qualities like empathy or professionalism in trainees. This would come as no surprise to Plato, who famously argued in the Meno that virtue cannot be taught. ⋯ As such, we address the question of the teachability of virtue in the realm of medicine, analysing Plato's contradictory analyses in the Meno and Protagoras, and drawing upon modern neuroscience to turn an empirical lens on the question. We explore the ways in which Noddings' Ethic of Care may offer a way forward for medical educators keen to foster virtue in trainees. We conclude by demonstrating how, by harnessing the power of caring relationships, the principles of Noddings' Ethic of Care have already been applied to medical education at a university in Israel.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Distinctive aspects of consent in pilot and feasibility studies.
Prior to a main randomized clinical trial, investigators often carry out a pilot or feasibility study in order to test certain trial processes or estimate key statistical parameters, so as to optimize the design of the main trial and/or determine whether it can feasibly be run. Pilot studies reflect the design of the intended main trial, whereas feasibility studies may not do so, and may not involve allocation to different treatments. Testing relative clinical effectiveness is not considered an appropriate aim of pilot or feasibility studies. ⋯ Equipoise may also be particularly challenging to grasp in the context of a pilot study. The consent process in pilot and feasibility studies requires a particular focus, and careful communication, if it is to carry the appropriate moral weight. There are corresponding implications for the process of ethical approval.
-
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.
-
According to an influential taxonomy of varieties of uncertainty in health care, existential uncertainty is a key aspect of uncertainty for patients. Although the term "existential uncertainty" appears across a number of disciplines in the research literature, its use is diffuse and inconsistent. To date there has not been a systematic attempt to define it. The aim of this study is to generate a theoretically-informed conceptualisation of existential uncertainty within the context of an established taxonomy. ⋯ Humans rely on identity, worldview, and a sense of meaning in life as ways of managing the ineradicable uncertainty of our being-in-the-world, and these can be challenged by a serious diagnosis. It is important that medical professionals acknowledge issues around existential uncertainty as well as issues around scientific uncertainty, and recognise when patients might be struggling with these. Further research is required to identify ways of measuring existential uncertainty and to develop appropriate interventions, but it is hoped that this conceptualisation provides a useful first step towards that goal.
-
Transdisciplinary research and generalist practice both face the task of integrating and discerning the value of knowledge across disciplinary and sectoral knowledge cultures. Transdisciplinarity and generalism also both offer philosophical and practical insights into the epistemology, ontology, axiology, and logic of seeing the 'whole'. Although generalism is a skill that can be used in many settings from industry to education, the focus of this paper is the literature of the primary care setting (i.e., general practice or family medicine). Generalist philosophy and practice in the family medicine setting highly values whole person care that uses integrative and interpretive wisdom to include both biomedical and biographical forms of knowledge. Generalist researchers are often caught between reductionist (positivist) biomedical measures and social science (post-positivist) constructivist theories of knowing. Neither of these approaches, even when juxtaposed in mixed-methods research, approximate the complexity of the generalist clinical encounter. A theoretically robust research methodology is needed that acknowledges the complexity of interpreting these ways of knowing in research and clinical practice. ⋯ The concurrence between these approaches to knowing is offered here as Transdisciplinary Generalism - a coherent epistemology for both primary care researchers and generalist clinicians to understand, enact, and research their own sophisticated craft of managing diverse forms of knowledge.