Taking stock of evidence-based medicine: opportunities for its continuing evolution

Reasoning, evidence, and clinical decision-making: The great debate moves forward

When the editorial to the first philosophy thematic edition of this journal was published in 2010, critical questioning of underlying assumptions, regarding such crucial issues as clinical decision making, practical reasoning, and the nature of evidence in health care, was still derided by some prominent contributors to the literature on medical practice. Things have changed dramatically. Far from being derided or dismissed as a distraction from practical concerns, the discussion of such fundamental questions, and their implications for matters of practical import, is currently the preoccupation of some of the most influential and insightful contributors to the on-going evidence-based medicine debate. Discussions focus on practical wisdom, evidence, and value and the relationship between rationality and context. In the debate about clinical practice, we are going to have to be more explicit and rigorous in future in developing and defending our views about what is valuable in human life.

Evidence-informed person-centred health care (part II): are 'cognitive biases plus' underlying the EBM paradigm responsible for undermining the quality of evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Recently, some leaders of the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement drew attention to the "unintended" negative consequences associated with EBM. The term 'cognitive biases plus' was introduced in part I to encompass cognitive biases, conflicts of interests, fallacies and certain behaviours.

HYPOTHESIS

'Cognitive biases plus' in those closely involved in creating and promoting the EBM paradigm are responsible for their (1) inability to anticipate and then recognize flaws in the tenets of EBM; (2) discounting alternative views; and (3) delaying reform.

METHODS

A narrative review style was used, with methods as in part I.

APPRAISAL OF LITERATURE

Over the past two decades there has been mounting qualitative and quantitative methodological evidence to suggest that the faith placed in (1) the EBM hierarchy with randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews at the summit; (2) the reliability of biostatistical methods to quantitate data; and (3) the primacy of sources of pre-appraised evidence, is seriously misplaced. Consequently, the evidence that informs person-centred care is compromised.

DISCUSSION

Arguments focusing on 'cognitive biases plus' are offered to support our hypothesis. To the best of our knowledge, EBM proponents have not provided an explanation.

CONCLUSIONS

Reform is urgently needed to minimize continuing risks to patients. If our hypothesis is correct, then in addition to the suggestions made in part I, deficiencies in the paradigm must be corrected. Meaningful solutions are only possible if the biases of scientific inbreeding and groupthink are minimized by collaboration between EBM leaders and those who have been sounding warning bells.

What is knowledge and when should it be implemented?

A primary purpose of research is to generate new knowledge. Scientific advances have progressively identified optimal ways to achieve this purpose. Included in this evolution are the notions of evidence-based medicine, decision aids, shared decision making, measurement and evaluation as well as implementation. The importance of including qualitative and quantitative methods in our research is now understood. We have debated the meaning of evidence and how to implement it. However, we have yet to consider how to include in our study findings other types of information such as tacit and experiential knowledge. This key consideration needs to take place before we translate new findings or 'knowledge' into clinical practice. This article critiques assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge and suggests a framework for implementing research findings into practice.

Making the improbable probable: communication across models of medical practice

Cooperation and conversation in the public sphere may overcome historical and other barriers to rational argumentation. As an alternative to evidence-based medicine (EBM) and patient-centered care (PCC), the recent development of a modern version of person-centered medicine (PCM) signals an opportunity for a conversational pluralogue to replace parallel monologues between EBM and its critics, and the calls to EBM to debate its critics. This article draws upon elements of Habermas's theory of communicative action in order to suggest the kind of pluralogue that is required for stakeholders in modern medicine to benefit more from publicly conversing with each other than speaking alone or using debate to argue against each other. This reasoned perspective has lessons for all discourse when deep value-based and epistemological differences cannot be easily adjudicated.

The evidence-based medicine model of clinical practice: scientific teaching or belief-based preaching?

RATIONALE

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is commonly advocated as a 'gold standard' of clinical practice. A prominent definition of EBM is: the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. Over time, various versions of a conceptual model or framework for implementing EBM (i.e. how to practice EBM) have been developed.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This paper (i) traces the evolution of the different versions of the conceptual model; (ii) tries to make explicit the underlying goals, assumptions and logic of the various versions by exploring the definitions and meaning of the components identified in each model, and the methods suggested for integrating these into clinical practice; and (iii) offers an analytic critique of the various model iterations.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken to identify, summarize, and compare the content of articles and books discussing EBM as a conceptual model to guide physicians in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that the EBM model of clinical practice, as it has evolved over time, is largely belief-based, because it is lacking in empirical evidence and theoretical support. The model is not well developed and articulated in terms of defining model components, justifying their inclusion and suggesting ways to integrate these in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

These findings are significant because without a model that clearly defines what constitutes an EBM approach to clinical practice we cannot (i) consistently teach clinicians how to do it and (ii) evaluate whether it is being done.

The challenge of evidence in clinical medicine

The primary goal of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been to change the way clinicians make decisions. But EBM has inappropriately privileged the results of clinical research for medical decision making and has undermined the importance of other kinds of medical knowledge, pathophysiologic understanding and clinical experience, to clinical practice. Here, the specific advantages and limitations of each kind of medical knowledge are examined. No particular kind of medical knowledge is necessarily more compelling than the others when it comes to making specific patient care decisions. Several cases where medical knowledge is conflicting are examined to demonstrate the weighting and negotiation necessary for sound clinical judgement. Expert clinicians must utilize a variety of reasons and methods of reasoning in arriving at the best clinical decision or recommendation for an individual patient. The process can be formalized and made explicit, but it cannot be narrowed, simplified and focused only on the results of clinical research.

Epistemology and ethics of evidence-based medicine: putting goal-setting in the right place

While evidence-based medicine (EBM) is often accused on relying on a paradigm of 'absolute truth', it is in fact highly consistent with Karl Popper's criterion of demarcation through falsification. Even more relevant, the first three steps of the EBM process are closely patterned on Popper's evolutionary approach of objective knowledge: (1) recognition of a problem; (2) generation of solutions; and (3) selection of the best solution. This places the step 1 of the EBM process (building an answerable question) in a pivotal position for the understanding of the whole process, and underscores a few aspects which are often overlooked in EBM courses. First in this step internal evidence (including personal expertise) must be appraised and integrated in the problem. Second, issues of applicability of the possible solution should be anticipated. Third, and possibly more important, the goal of the intervention should be set at this stage (typically by choosing the outcome in a PICO question). Depending whether or not goals depend on the goals of others, and whether they concern others' voluntary behaviour, goals may be classified as self-serving, moral, altruistic or moralistic. Thus, delicate ethical questions must be addressed at this stage, which means that patient preferences and values must be carefully sought, so that empathy, counselling and narrative medicine must be mastered to be able to formulate correctly an answerable question. The need to modify the current description of the EBM process to increase the recognition of implicit assumptions and increase the consistency of this model is discussed.

Strengthening conflict-of-interest policies in medicine

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Conflict-of-interest (COI) policies have played a vital role in protecting the integrity of science as well as protecting patients' welfare. However, the usefulness of these policies could be enhanced by addressing gaps in disclosure requirements, especially insofar as these gaps may impede the intended neutrality of COI policies. For example, current COI policies have not addressed potential conflicts created by indirect industry funding, such as when pharmaceutical companies provide general funding to researchers' academic departments or to medical educational programmes. Nor do they address the consequent creation of climates of opinion, which may marginalize important criticisms and undermine progress on this important policy issue.

METHODS

The authors used a critical thinking approach to analyze the gaps in existing COI policies.

CONCLUSION

Taking the position that a more adequate system of checks and balances is needed, the authors offer specific recommendations for improving current policies and for addressing the issue of indirect support.

Hospital social work: contemporary roles and professional activities

Since its inception in the 1900s, hospital social work has been impacted by the ever changing hospital environment. The institution of Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs), the era of reengineering, and the constant struggle toward health care reform make it necessary to evaluate and substantiate the value and efficacy of social workers in hospital settings. This study identifies current roles and activities carried out by social workers in acute hospital settings from across the nation in the aftermath of reengineering. Findings suggest the primary role of respondents in this study to be discharge planning with little to no involvement in practice research or income-generating activities.

The discomfort of an evidence-based prescribing decision

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Prescribing decisions are not always based on published clinical research; social and environmental influences can sometimes drive such decisions. However, little is known about this topic in prescribing in secondary care. The aim of this study was to explore such influences by asking doctors to discuss their uncomfortable prescribing decisions in secondary care.

METHODS

Forty-eight doctors, of varying grades from four hospitals, were selected for in-depth qualitative interviews, which included the critical incident technique. Doctors were asked to remember any uncomfortable prescribing decisions and these 'incidents' were discussed, enabling the researcher to unpack the more subconscious influences on the decision to prescribe. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A grounded theory approach to data analysis was taken.

RESULTS

All doctors had previously been uncomfortable when attempting to practise in accordance with evidence-based medicine. Locating, critically appraising and applying the evidence to individual patients were frequent causes of discomfort. Many doctors struggled with uncomfortable decisions that were influenced by non-research evidence, such as prior experience or expert opinion. This appeared, in part, because of these doctors' skewed notions that EBM condemns clinical experience as illegitimate evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating the research evidence into prescribing decisions was associated with much discomfort by secondary care doctors. Greater efforts should also be placed towards developing the model of EBM, so that it fits more explicitly with how medicine is currently practised. Perhaps more importantly, educators need to reinforce what EBM is and what it is not to all concerned in the delivery of health care.

Individualized population care: linking personal care to population care in general practice

BACKGROUND

General practice is increasingly expected to deliver population care to individual patients. The feasibility and ethics of this policy shift have been challenged.

AIM

Our aim is to suggest how to deliver population care while protecting personal care.

METHODS

We outline and discuss concepts of these types of care, their relation to the prevailing discourse regarding intervention benefits, and arguments for individualized population care.

RESULTS

Individualized population care can enable general practice to meet the health targets of individual patients in the light of population-based goals. It unifies the concepts of personal care and whole population care. Personal care focuses on the individual good in particular consultations. Whole population care focuses on the overall health good of a population without reference to the individuality of each population member. These types of care constitute elements of a continuum that varies in purpose and objects of focus. The limitations of a crude dichotomy of personal care and population care are made explicit in a series of five arguments that lend support to the concept of individualized population care.

CONCLUSIONS

We advocate a constructive but critical attitude towards the idea of population-based interventions in everyday general practice. Traditional personal care and whole population care can theoretically be integrated into individualized population care. However, this presupposes clinical-epidemiological expertise and moral awareness in practising clinicians.

The use of evidence-based medicine in pediatrics: past, present and future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Evidence-based medicine is a process that seeks to integrate the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values in order to optimize clinical outcomes for our patients. This article will review the benefits of and barriers to the use of evidence-based medicine in pediatrics in the twenty-first century, discuss various implementation strategies and outline the resources that pediatricians could use to increase their knowledge and skills and apply them to their clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although physicians have generally welcomed evidence-based medicine, the benefits and limitations are often debated, and studies reveal that physicians feel that practicing evidence-based medicine could be difficult in a busy clinical practice because they lack the time, knowledge and resources. There have been many recent developments to help pediatricians overcome these barriers and to use best evidence in their practice.

SUMMARY

Pediatricians must be able to use the evidence-based medicine process to identify, access, apply and integrate new knowledge into their practice to provide high-quality care for their patients. The resources discussed in this review will help pediatricians make clinical decisions about patient care that are based on the best, most current, valid, and relevant evidence available.

Considerations for developing an evidenced-based practice in orthotics and prosthetics

Evidence-based practice has become somewhat of a catchphrase over the past ten years. In this paper evidence-based practice is defined and its importance for the development of the prosthetics and orthotics profession is highlighted. The authors suggest that evidence-based practice needs to be prioritized within the profession and that a cultural change needs to be initiated which supports clinicians in incorporating research findings into their daily practice. In addition, the authors highlight the need for prosthetists/orthotists to become more active in generating research rather than relying on other professional groups to contribute to their professional body of knowledge.

Evaluating primary care doctors' evidence-based medicine skills in a busy clinical setting

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To date, primary care doctors' (PCDs) evidence-based medicine (EBM) skills have rarely been studied. We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate PCDs' practical EBM skills and to determine risk markers associated with these skills.

METHODS

The study sample consisted of 70 PCDs (70.7% response rate) practising in a busy urban setting from a large health maintenance organization. Participants were given a short validated questionnaire gauging attitudes, barriers, online medical resources utilization, as well as demographic and personal characteristics. Additionally, doctors completed an online and written exam evaluating their ability to formulate clinical questions, and retrieve medical information efficiently. Data analysis was performed using both bivariate and multivariate analysis (linear regression).

RESULTS

PCDs found it difficult to formulate clinical questions both in the written and online exam, mostly neglecting to mention the Patient and Comparison components of PICO (patient, intervention, comparison and outcome). Search strategies primarily dispensed with the use of MeSH terms, ignoring appropriate limits. Doctors final scores were low (score = 41.5/100, SD = 16.2). In bivariate analysis clinical experience was negatively correlated with the final score (r = -0.36, P = 0.01), and specialists' scores were significantly higher than general practitioners' scores (46.7/100 and 31.5/100 respectively, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, doctors specialization was the only statistically significant predictor of the final score (B = 12.74, P = 0.002), while controlling for participating in a prior EBM course.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the need for enhancing PCDs practical EBM skills. Future research and interventions should focus on this population emphasizing the specific needs of subpopulations (i.e. general practitioners and doctors without previous EBM training).

Evaluating the impact of an evidence-based medicine educational intervention on primary care doctors' attitudes, knowledge and clinical behaviour: a controlled trial and before and after study

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Traditional continuing medical education programmes that offer passive learning have been shown to be poorly effective at changing doctors' clinical behaviour. A multifaceted evidence-based medicine (EBM) intervention was conducted at the largest health maintenance organization (HMO) in Israel, attempting to facilitate a change in doctors' attitudes, knowledge and clinical behaviour. No study thus far has examined the association between the teaching of EBM principles and doctors' clinical behaviour. This study evaluated the intervention programme through a controlled trial and before and after study. The objective of the evaluation is binary: first, to examine the impact of an educational intervention on family doctors' test ordering performance and drug utilization by their patients; and second, to assess the impact of the intervention on attitudes towards evidence-based practice and knowledge.

METHODS

Controlled trial and before and after study. Primary care clinics comprising similar patient characteristics were randomly allocated to the experimental or to the control group. Doctors in the experimental group participated in an EBM educational intervention, while the control group did not take part in the intervention. Clinicians' test ordering performance and their patients' drug utilization were derived from the HMO's database before intervention, after workshops and after intervention. Participants in the controlled trial consisted of 75 doctors and their 106 349 patients. The before and after study evaluated intervention doctors' (n = 70) EBM attitudes and knowledge through a validated questionnaire before and after workshops.

RESULTS

EBM workshops enhanced intervention doctors' EBM knowledge scores from 22.4/100 before workshops to 40.8/100 after workshops (P = 0.000). Doctors improved their ability to formulate clinical questions while enhancing their search strategy using Medline. In a linear regression model, two covariates, specialization (B = 12.59; P = 0.001) and habitually reading medical journals (B = 6.45; P = 0.052), best explained the variance in doctors' EBM knowledge scores, while controlling for pre-intervention scores (R(2) = 0.569; P = 0.000). Results from the controlled trial indicated that no statistically significant differences were found between intervention and control doctors' test ordering performances, and their patients' drug utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study suggest that the intervention positively influenced attitudes and knowledge; however, no statistically significant impact was found on doctors' test ordering performance and on their patients' drug utilization. The intervention's inability to change doctors' clinical behaviour might be remedied by improving future interventions through adding additional facets to the educational intervention, such as social marketing techniques and personal feedback. A longer and more extensive intervention might be more effective but is extremely difficult to execute as we found in this study. Future larger-scale interventions must incorporate the intervention into the routines of the organization, thus minimizing barriers towards EBM implementation.