Cargando…

Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is maturing from its early focus on epidemiology to embrace a wider range of disciplines and methodologies. At the heart of EBM is the patient, whose informed choices have long been recognised as paramount. However, good evidence-based care is more than choi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Greenhalgh, Trisha, Snow, Rosamund, Ryan, Sara, Rees, Sian, Salisbury, Helen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26324223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x
_version_ 1782388321461207040
author Greenhalgh, Trisha
Snow, Rosamund
Ryan, Sara
Rees, Sian
Salisbury, Helen
author_facet Greenhalgh, Trisha
Snow, Rosamund
Ryan, Sara
Rees, Sian
Salisbury, Helen
author_sort Greenhalgh, Trisha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is maturing from its early focus on epidemiology to embrace a wider range of disciplines and methodologies. At the heart of EBM is the patient, whose informed choices have long been recognised as paramount. However, good evidence-based care is more than choices. DISCUSSION: We discuss six potential ‘biases’ in EBM that may inadvertently devalue the patient and carer agenda: limited patient input to research design, low status given to experience in the hierarchy of evidence, a tendency to conflate patient-centred consulting with use of decision tools; insufficient attention to power imbalances that suppress the patient’s voice, over-emphasis on the clinical consultation, and focus on people who seek and obtain care (rather than the hidden denominator of those that do not seek or cannot access care). SUMMARY: To reduce these ‘biases’, EBM should embrace patient involvement in research, make more systematic use of individual (‘personally significant’) evidence, take a more interdisciplinary and humanistic view of consultations, address unequal power dynamics in healthcare encounters, support patient communities, and address the inverse care law.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4556220
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45562202015-09-02 Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine Greenhalgh, Trisha Snow, Rosamund Ryan, Sara Rees, Sian Salisbury, Helen BMC Med Debate BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is maturing from its early focus on epidemiology to embrace a wider range of disciplines and methodologies. At the heart of EBM is the patient, whose informed choices have long been recognised as paramount. However, good evidence-based care is more than choices. DISCUSSION: We discuss six potential ‘biases’ in EBM that may inadvertently devalue the patient and carer agenda: limited patient input to research design, low status given to experience in the hierarchy of evidence, a tendency to conflate patient-centred consulting with use of decision tools; insufficient attention to power imbalances that suppress the patient’s voice, over-emphasis on the clinical consultation, and focus on people who seek and obtain care (rather than the hidden denominator of those that do not seek or cannot access care). SUMMARY: To reduce these ‘biases’, EBM should embrace patient involvement in research, make more systematic use of individual (‘personally significant’) evidence, take a more interdisciplinary and humanistic view of consultations, address unequal power dynamics in healthcare encounters, support patient communities, and address the inverse care law. BioMed Central 2015-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4556220/ /pubmed/26324223 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x Text en © Greenhalgh et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Greenhalgh, Trisha
Snow, Rosamund
Ryan, Sara
Rees, Sian
Salisbury, Helen
Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
title Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
title_full Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
title_fullStr Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
title_full_unstemmed Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
title_short Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
title_sort six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26324223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x
work_keys_str_mv AT greenhalghtrisha sixbiasesagainstpatientsandcarersinevidencebasedmedicine
AT snowrosamund sixbiasesagainstpatientsandcarersinevidencebasedmedicine
AT ryansara sixbiasesagainstpatientsandcarersinevidencebasedmedicine
AT reessian sixbiasesagainstpatientsandcarersinevidencebasedmedicine
AT salisburyhelen sixbiasesagainstpatientsandcarersinevidencebasedmedicine