Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Digital health technologies: Compounding the existing ethical challenges of the 'right' not to know.
Doctors hold a prima facie duty to respect the autonomy of their patients. This manifests as the patient's 'right' not to know when patients wish to remain unaware of medical information regarding their health, and poses ethical challenges for good medical practice. This paper explores how the emergence of digital health technologies might impact upon the patient's 'right' not to know. ⋯ These digital tools should be designed to include functionality that mitigates these ethical challenges, and allows the preservation of their user's autonomy with regard to the medical information they wish to learn and not learn about.
-
Evidence-based practice is the principle governing a range of healthcare practices and beyond. However, it has suffered from a lack of philosophical rigour. This paper sets out to analyse the epistemological basis of evidence-based practice. ⋯ There is a need to re-think the epistemological basis for evidence-based practice. Evidence-based practice is out of touch with developments within philosophy of science.
-
One of the criticisms of the operational/diagnostic criteria, generalised since DSM-III, has been that they were shaped solely to achieve the best inter-peer reliability with no considerations for validity. This does not fully reflect reality since throughout the development of the criteria, there was an effort to define and fulfil some validity requirements. However, despite several attempts to create alternative diagnostic systems, there is still a widespread misunderstanding of the epistemological foundations that support this paradigm. ⋯ On the epistemological basis of these operational criteria (OC) the influence of Hempel has been widely discussed. However, the group from St. Louis and, also the DSM-III editors, never openly acknowledged his role and his contribution and revealed other influences such as other medical specialties (that used and validated several OC in the diagnosis of their diseases). On the other hand, contrary to what has often been mentioned there has been a continuous attempt to validate the OC since their conception. In the implementation and development of the operational paradigm, a more instrumental trend was followed, focused on utility, but with successive attempts to achieve realistic validity by searching for biological or psychological causality. The methodologies were initially expert-driven and gradually more data-driven and included some variables external to the construct itself, such as familial aggregation, diagnostic consistency over time, prognostic and other psychometric measures.
-
Review
Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise.
Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction. ⋯ The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.