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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |