Experiential knowledge in clinical medicine: use and justification

Storylines of family medicine VIII: clinical approaches

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'VIII: clinical approaches', authors address the following themes: 'Evaluation, diagnosis and management I-toward a working diagnosis', 'Evaluation, diagnosis and management II-process steps', 'Interweaving integrative medicine and family medicine', 'Halfway-the art of clinical judgment', 'Seamless integration in family medicine-team-based care', 'Technology-uncovering stories from noise' and 'Caring for patients with multiple long-term conditions'. May readers recognise in these essays the uniqueness of a family medicine approach to care.

A call to address structural barriers to Hispanic/Latino representation in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: A micro-meso-macro perspective

Introduction

This perspective paper addresses the US Hispanic/Latino (herein, Latino) experience with regards to a significant public health concern-the underrepresentation of Latino persons in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD) clinical trials. Latino individuals are at increased risk for AD/ADRD, experience higher disease burden, and low receipt of care and services. We present a novel theoretical framework-the Micro-Meso-Macro Framework for Diversifying AD/ADRD Trial Recruitment-which considers multi-level barriers and their impact on Latino trial recruitment.

Methods

Based on a review of the peer-reviewed literature and our lived experience with the Latino community, we drew from our interdisciplinary expertise in health equity and disparities research, Latino studies, social work, nursing, political economy, medicine, public health, and clinical AD/ADRD trials. We discuss factors likely to impede or accelerate Latino representation, and end with a call for action and recommendations for a bold path forward.

Results

In the 200+ clinical trials conducted with over 70,000 US Americans, Latino participants comprise a fraction of AD/ADRD trial samples. Efforts to recruit Latino participants typically address individual- and family-level factors (micro-level) such as language, cultural beliefs, knowledge of aging and memory loss, limited awareness of research, and logistical considerations. Scientific efforts to understand recruitment barriers largely remain at this level, resulting in diminished attention to upstream institutional- and policy-level barriers, where decisions around scientific policies and funding allocations are ultimately made. These structural barriers are comprised of inadequacies or misalignments in trial budgets, study protocols, workforce competencies, healthcare-related barriers, criteria for reviewing and approving clinical trial funding, criteria for disseminating findings, etiological focus and social determinants of health, among others.

Conclusion

Future scientific work should apply and test the Micro-Meso-Macro Framework for Diversifying AD/ADRD Trial Recruitment to examine structural recruitment barriers for historically underrepresented groups in AD/ADRD research and care.

Against 'instantaneous' expertise

BACKGROUND

Healthcare is predicated on the use of biotechnology and medical technology, both of which are indispensable in diagnosis, treatment, and most aspects of patient care. It is therefore imperative that justifications for use of new technologies are appropriate, with the technologies working as advertised. In this paper, I consider philosophical accounts of how such justifications are made.

METHODS

Critical philosophical reflection and analysis.

RESULTS

I propose that justification in many prominent accounts is based on the designer's professional experience and on expert testimony. I argue, however, that professional designers are not in a position to justify a new biotechnology or medical device if the justification is based on testimony or past experience of presumably similar technologies. I argue (1) that similarity judgments offered by instantaneous experts cannot be viewed as contributing (epistemically) to evidential justification of new and unproven technologies; and (2) that designers and manufacturers cannot endorse a technology's effective function in a patient-care context until it has been successfully used in that context.

CONCLUSION

I show that an expert's past professional experiences can never predict or justify the impact of a novel technology on human health. This is because any new technology leads to the introduction of new mechanisms with unprecedented functions. The new technology therefore needs to be studied in situ and justified as a newly created mechanism within the relevant healthcare setting. Ultimately, justifications of this type rely on the scientific community and society engaging in repeated experimentation and observation of the technology, and confirming its successful use.

Development of a measure of clinicians' self-efficacy for medical communication (SEMC)

OBJECTIVES

Studies of clinician-patient communication have used varied, ad hoc measures for communication efficacy. We developed and validated the Self-Efficacy for Medical Communication (SEMC) scale as a standard, quantitative measure of clinician-reported skills in communicating difficult news.

METHODS

Using evidence-based scale development guidelines, we created two 16-item forms of the SEMC, one assessing communication with patients and one assessing communication with families. Clinicians providing oncological care in four organisations were invited to participate and provided consent. Participant demographics, responses to the SEMC items and responses to convergent and discriminant measures (those expected to relate strongly and weakly to the SEMC) were collected online. We performed analyses to determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the SEMC as well as its reliability and factor structure.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 oncology clinicians (including physicians, residents, fellows, medical students, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) participated. The patient and family forms both demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.94 and 0.96, respectively) and were strongly correlated with one another (r=0.95, p<0.001). Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the SEMC measures a unitary construct (eigenvalue=9.0), and its higher mean correlation with convergent (r=0.46) than discriminant (r=0.22) measures further supported its validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the SEMC's validity and reliability as a measure of clinician-rated communication skills regarding conducting difficult conversations with patients and families. It provides a useful standard tool for future research in oncology provider-patient serious illness communication.

Translating science into practice in clinical psychology: A reformulation of the evidence-based practice inquiry model

The model of evidence-based practice (EBP) directs clinicians to integrate the best available research evidence, clinical expertise, client preferences and values, and social and cultural factors in the assessment and treatment of psychological problems. Despite its many strengths, the five-step inquiry component of the EBP model suffers from several conceptual and practical problems that make it difficult to implement in practice. In this article, we first outline the transdisciplinary EBP model. Second, several criticisms of the overall EBP model are outlined and briefly discussed. Third, five pressing problems in the inquiry component of the EBP model are identified: (a) information overload, (b) a focus on questions rather than tasks, (c) neglect of theory, (d) difficulty dealing with conflicting evidence, and (e) an oversimplified view of the role of values in research and practice. Fourth, we suggest ways of modifying the inquiry part of the model to address these problems.

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.