Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
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.
-
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.
-
Racial discrimination has been increasingly reported to have a causal link with morbidity and mortality of Black Americans, yet this issue is rarely addressed in a public health perspective. Racism affects health at different levels: institutional racism is a structural and legalized system that results in differential access to health services; cultural racism refers to the negative racial stereotypes, often reinforced by media, that results in poorer psychological and physiological wellbeing of the minorities. Lastly, interpersonal racism refers to the persistence of racial prejudice that seriously undermines the doctor-patient relationship. ⋯ This study represents an important milestone in the application of public health on racial injustices, yet racism must be tackled with a sustained, multilevel, and interdisciplinary approach. In conclusion, this paper addresses how public health interventions can empower Black minorities and bring forward long-term policies. Racism is a structural and long-standing system that can be eliminated only with the collective effort.
-
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.