The search for substance: a quest for the identity-conditions of evidence-based medicine and some comments on Djulbegovic, B., Guyatt, G. H. & Ashcroft, R. E. (2009) Cancer Control, 16, 158-168

Health care frames - from Virchow to Obama and beyond: the changing frames in health care and their implications for patient care

RATIONALE, AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Framing allows us to highlight some aspects of an issue, thereby bringing them to the forefront of our thinking, talking and acting. As a consequence, framing also distracts our attention away from other issues. Over time, health care has used various frames to explain its activities. This paper traces the emergence of various health care frames since the 1850s to better understand how we reached current ways of thinking and practicing.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The succession of the most prominent frames can be summarized as: medicine as a social science; the germ theory of disease; health care as a battleground (or the war metaphor); managing health care resources (or the market metaphor); Health for All (the social justice model); evidence-based medicine; and Obama Care. The focus of these frames is causal, instrumental, political/economic or social in nature. All remain relevant; however, recycling individual past frames in response to current problems will not achieve the outcomes we seek. Placing the individual and his/her needs at the centre (the attractor for the health system) of our thinking, as emphasized by the World Health Organization's International Classification of Function framework and the European Society of Person Centered Health Care, may provide the frame to refocus health and health care as interdependent experiences across individual, community and societal domains. Shifting beyond the entrenched instrumental and economic thinking will be challenging but necessary for the sake of patients, health professionals, society and the economy.

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.

For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong: and other aphorisms about medical statistical fallacies

RATIONALE, METHOD

This essay examines the notions of knowledge, truth and certainty as they apply to medical research and patient care. The human body does not behave in mechanistic but rather complex adaptive ways; thus, its behaviour to challenges is non-deterministic. This insight has important ramifications for experimental studies in health care and their statistical interrogation that are described in detail.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Four implications are highlighted: one, there is an urgent need to develop a greater awareness of uncertainties and how to respond to them in clinical practice, namely, what is important and what is not in the context of this patient; two, there is an equally urgent need for health professionals to understand some basic statistical terms and their meanings, specifically absolute risk, its reciprocal, numbers needed to treat and its inverse, index of therapeutic impotence, as well as seeking out the effect size of an intervention rather than blindly accepting P-values; three, there is an urgent need to accurately present the known in comprehensible ways through the use of visual tools; and four, there is a need to overcome the perception, that errors of commission are less troublesome than errors of omission as neither's consequences are predictable.

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.