Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Frequent follow-up is recommended for the more than 3 million breast cancer survivors living in the USA. Given the multidisciplinary nature of breast cancer treatment, follow-up may be provided by medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and primary care providers. This creates the potential for significant redundancy as well as gaps in care. The objective was to examine patterns of breast cancer follow-up provided by different types of oncologists and develop a statistical means of quantifying visit distribution over time. ⋯ Using a novel means of quantifying follow-up visit regularity, we determined that breast cancer patients with dispersed follow-up with more than one oncologist have more disordered care. The CV could be used in electronic medical records to identify cancer survivors with more disordered.
-
Overdiagnosis refers to diagnosis that does not benefit patients because the diagnosed condition is not a harmful disease in those individuals. Overdiagnosis has been identified as a problem in cancer screening, diseases such as chronic kidney disease and diabetes, and a range of mental illnesses including depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In this paper, we describe overdiagnosis, investigate reasons why it occurs, and propose two different types. ⋯ Maldetection overdiagnosis arises because, at the time the diagnosis is made and despite the presence of a 'gold standard' diagnostic test, it is not possible to discriminate between harmful and non-harmful cases of the index disease. We illustrate maldetection overdiagnosis using the example of thyroid cancer. While there is some overlap between misclassification and maldetection overdiagnosis, this conceptual analysis helps to clarify the phenomenon of overdiagnosis and is a necessary first step in developing strategies to address the problem.
-
Evidence-based health care (EBHC) has consistently been attacked by opponents for being perniciously reductive. Although these attacks are overwhelmingly framed as critiques of evidence-based medicine, they standardly target the research wing of EBHC upon which evidence-based medicine is dependent, and increasingly extend to adjacent health care disciplines, such as nursing. One of the most persistent forms this line of attack has taken is the allegation that EBHC, with its emphasis on the hierarchy of evidence, grounded in the use of randomized controlled trials, and the clinical guidelines developed on their basis, fails to recognize the patient as the complex self she is, treating her instead as merely a quantifiable, medical-scientific object. ⋯ Review of these critiques suggests they can be categorized into two groups: soft critiques and strong critiques. Soft critiques tend to take a more measured tone grounded in empirical concerns about the dangers of an evidence-based approach to health care, whereas strong critiques tend to make sweeping claims grounded in theoretical commitments to anti-foundationalist philosophical frameworks. While both soft and strong critiques ultimately fail to make the case that EBHC has no room for the self, the empirical concerns of soft critiques nevertheless present a challenge EBHC advocates would do well to take seriously and address.
-
Since its inception in the early 1990s, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become the dominant epistemic framework for Western medical practice. However, in light of powerful criticisms against EBM, alternatives such as casuistic medicine have been gaining support in both the medical and philosophical community. In the absence of empirical evidence in support of the claim that EBM improves patient outcomes, and in light of considerations that it is unlikely that such evidence will be forthcoming, another standard is needed to assess EBM against its alternatives. ⋯ I then apply these criteria to assess EBM against a casuistic framework for medical knowledge. I argue that EBM's strict adherence to a hierarchical organization of knowledge can reasonably be expected to block it from fulfilling a high level of objectivity. A casuistic framework, on the other hand, because it emphasizes critical evaluation in conjunction with the flexibility of a case-based approach, could be expected to better facilitate a more optimal epistemic community.