Evidence-based medicine and women: do the principles and practice of EBM further women's health?

A Politics of Objectivity: Biomedicine's Attempts to Grapple with "non-financial" Conflicts of Interest

Increasingly, policymakers within biomedicine argue that "non-financial" interests should be given equal scrutiny to individuals' financial relationships with industry. Problematized as "non-financial conflicts of interest," interests, ranging from intellectual commitments to personal beliefs, are managed through disclosure, restrictions on participation, and recusal where necessary. "Non-financial" interests, though vaguely and variably defined, are characterized as important influences on judgment and thus, are considered risks to scientific objectivity. This article explores the ways that "non-financial interests" have been constructed as an ethical problem and the implications for research integrity. I conducted an interpretive, qualitative study, which triangulated two data sources: documents (including published accounts of identifying and managing "non-financial" interests and conflict of interest policies) and in-depth interviews with 16 leaders within evidence-based medicine, responsible for contributing to, directing, or overseeing conflict of interest policy development and implementation. This article outlines how evolutions in the definition of conflict of interest have opened the door to include myriad "non-financial" interests, resulting in the generalisation of a statistical concept-risk of bias-to social contexts. Consequently, biases appear equally pervasive among participants while in reality, a politics of objectivity is at play, with allegations of conflict of interest used as a means to undermine others' credibility, or even participation. Iterations of the concept of conflict of interest within biomedicine have thus consistently failed to articulate or address questions of accountability including whose interests are able to dominate or distort evidence-led processes and why. Consequently, current policy solutions meant to mitigate bias may instead serve exclusionary purposes under the guise of impartiality while remaining vulnerable to interference from powerful stakeholders.

Understanding professional stakeholders' active resistance to guideline implementation: The case of Canadian breast screening guidelines

Health guidelines aim to improve patient outcomes through the promotion of evidence-based practice. Yet, when a guideline's recommendations significantly differ from, or threaten the interests, values and preferred practices of end-users, organised and often very public resistance to guideline implementation may result. To explore this phenomenon, we theorise a case study consisting of the public discourse following the update to a primary care breast screening guideline in Canada in 2018. Informed by sociological perspectives on the professions and evidence-based medicine, this paper aims to explore: [1] why professional stakeholders form active resistances to the implementation of some clinical guidelines; and, [2] how professional values, perspectives, interests and/or experiences influence the stakeholders' stance. Current understandings have taken a reductive approach in conceptualising the exclusion of experts and their resistance as "conflict of interest." Rather, we suggest that resistance is the product of multiple areas of contention, stemming from tensions related to clinical and professional autonomy, medical jurisdiction, and the role of medical elites. We highlight considerations for future guideline development and implementation process changes to mitigate and resolve issues related to active resistance. These considerations include understanding resistance as a political strategy, increasing transparency of public input and coalition building as a part of the public response to active resistance.

Artificial intelligence and automation of systematic reviews in women's health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Evidence-based women's healthcare is underpinned by systematic reviews and guidelines. Generating an evidence synthesis to support guidance for clinical practice is a time-consuming and labour-intensive activity that delays transfer of research into practice. Artificial intelligence has the potential to rapidly collate, combine, and update high-quality medical evidence with accuracy and precision, and without bias.

RECENT FINDINGS

This article describes the main fields of artificial intelligence with examples of its application to systematic reviews. These include the capabilities of processing natural language texts, retrieving information, reasoning, and learning. The complementarity and interconnection of the various artificial intelligence techniques can be harnessed to solve difficult problems in automation of reviews. Computer science can advance evidence-based medicine through development, testing, and refinement of artificial intelligence tools to deploy automation, creating 'living' evidence syntheses.

SUMMARY

Groundbreaking, high-quality, and impactful artificial intelligence will accelerate the transfer of individual research studies seamlessly into evidence syntheses for contemporaneously improving the quality of healthcare.

The role of gender in the association between child maltreatment and substance use behavior: a systematic review of longitudinal research from 1995 to 2011

This systematic review analyzes the role of gender in the association between childhood maltreatment and substance use outcomes, among longitudinal papers published between 1995 and 2011. Ten papers examined gender as a moderating variable. Results on gender differences were mixed. When studies that found no gender effects were compared with studies that did identify gender effects, differences in measurement, sample composition, and developmental timing of outcomes were identified. This review also examines how gender effects are assessed. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed. Areas for future research are identified.

Challenging the epistemological foundations of EBM: what kind of knowledge does clinical practice require?

This paper raises questions about the epistemological foundations of evidence-based medicine (EBM). We argue that EBM is based upon reliabilist epistemological assumptions, and that this is appropriate - we should focus on identifying the most reliable processes for generating and collecting medical knowledge. However, we note that this should not be reduced to narrow questions about which research methodologies are the best for gathering evidence. Reliable processes for generating medical evidence might lie outside of formal research methods. We also question the notion of the knower that is assumed by EBM. We argue that EBM assumes an enlightenment conception of knowers as autonomous, substitutable individuals. This conception is troubled by the way that clinicians learn the role of anecdote in health care and the role of patient choice, all of which bring into play features of clinicians and patients as situated individuals with particular backgrounds and experiences. EBM's enlightenment conception of the knower is also troubled by aspects of the way evidence is produced. Given these limitations, we argue that EBM should retain its reliabilist bent, but should look beyond formal research methodologies in identifying processes that yield reliable evidence for clinical practice. We suggest looking to feminist epistemology, with its focus on the standpoints of individual situated knowers, and the role of social context in determining what counts as knowledge.

A GENS-based approach to cardiovascular pharmacology: impact on metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Pharmacological outcomes depend on many factors, with many of them being sexually dimorphic. Thus, physiological gender/sex (GENS) differences can influence pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and, thus, bioavailability and resulting in efficacy of treatment, meaning GENS differences should be an important consideration in therapeutics. In particular, drug response can change according to different hormonal environments. Therefore, GENS-specific differences have a particular clinical relevance in terms of drug delivery, especially for those substances with a narrow therapeutic margin. Since adverse effects are more frequent among women, safety is a key issue. Overall, the status of women, from a pharmacological point of view, is often different and less studied than that of men and deserves particular attention. Further studies focused on women's responses to drugs are necessary in order to make optimal pharmacotherapeutic decisions.

Explanatory models are needed to integrate RCT and observational data with the patient's unique biology

In this review, we make the case for evidence-based medicine (EBM) to include models of disease underscored by evidence in order to integrate evidence, as it is currently defined, with the patient's unique biology. This would allow clinicians to use a pathophysiologic rationale, but underscoring the pathophysiological model with evidence would create an objective evidence base for extrapolating randomized controlled trial evidence. EBM encourages practitioners not to be passive receivers of information, but to question the information. By the same token, practitioners should not be passive executors of the process by which information is generated, appraised and applied, but should question the process. We use the historical examples of the evolution of EBM to show that its subordination of a pathophysiological perspective was unintentional, and of essential hypertension to illustrate the importance of disease models and the fact that evidence supporting them comes from many sources. We follow this with an illustration of the benefits a pathophysiological perspective can bring and a suggested model of how inclusion of pathophysiological models in the EBM approach would work. From a practical perspective, information cannot be integrated with the patient's unique biology without knowledge of that biology; this is why EBM is currently so silent on how to carry out its fourth stage. It is also clear that, regardless of whether a philosophical or practical definition of evidence is used, pathophysiology is evidence and should be regarded as such.

Gender and the human genome

GENDER ISSUES ARISE IN RELATION TO THE HUMAN GENOME ACROSS A NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS: the level of attention given to the nuclear genome as opposed to the mitochondrial; the level of basic scientific research; decision-making in the clinic related to both reproductive decision-making on the one hand, and diagnostic and predictive testing on the other; and wider societal implications. Feminist bioethics offers a useful perspective for addressing these issues.

Nutrition and human health from a sex-gender perspective

Nutrition exerts a life-long impact on human health, and the interaction between nutrition and health has been known for centuries. The recent literature has suggested that nutrition could differently influence the health of male and female individuals. Until the last decade of the 20th century, research on women has been neglected, and the results obtained in men have been directly translated to women in both the medicine and nutrition fields. Consequently, most modern guidelines are based on studies predominantly conducted on men. However, there are many sex-gender differences that are the result of multifactorial inputs, including gene repertoires, sex steroid hormones, and environmental factors (e.g., food components). The effects of these different inputs in male and female physiology will be different in different periods of ontogenetic development as well as during pregnancy and the ovarian cycle in females, which are also age dependent. As a result, different strategies have evolved to maintain male and female body homeostasis, which, in turn, implies that there are important differences in the bioavailability, metabolism, distribution, and elimination of foods and beverages in males and females. This article will review some of these differences underlying the impact of food components on the risk of developing diseases from a sex-gender perspective.

Ethics and EBM: acknowledging bias, accepting difference and embracing politics

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been effective because it confers both epistemic and moral authority, promising that both individual patient care and public health interventions are effective, safe and efficient, that these decisions and standards can be determined (and therefore judged) in a transparent manner and that this form of decision making is reliable, objective and value-free. The problem is that EBM refers to particular, ideologically and philosophically specific concepts of evidence, medicine and the relationship between them. The analysis of the 'ethics' of EBM, therefore, requires not only a critique of its philosophical naïvety and its attachment to modernism and positivism, but a critique of its social, cultural and political implications.

The effectiveness of NHS smoking cessation services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To analyse evidence on the effectiveness of intensive NHS treatments for smoking cessation in helping smokers to quit.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published between 1990 and 2007. Electronic databases were searched for published studies. Unpublished reports were identified from the national research register and experts.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included. They suggest that intensive NHS treatments for smoking cessation are effective in helping smokers to quit. The national evaluation found 4-week carbon monoxide monitoring validated quit rates of 53%, falling to 15% at 1 year. There is some evidence that group treatment may be more effective than one-to-one treatment, and the impact of 'buddy support' varies based on treatment type. Evidence on the effectiveness of in-patient interventions is currently very limited. Younger smokers, females, pregnant smokers and more deprived smokers appear to have lower short-term quit rates than other groups.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to determine the most effective models of NHS treatment for smoking cessation and the efficacy of those models with subgroups. Factors such as gender, age, socio-economic status and ethnicity appear to influence outcomes, but a current lack of diversity-specific analysis of results makes it impossible to ascertain the differential impact of intervention types on particular subpopulations.

Exclusion of women from clinical research: myth or reality?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of male and female research participants and rates of sex-based analysis and sex-specific reporting in published Australian clinical research.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We assessed 400 clinical studies involving Australian-only participants, published in journals between January 1, 2003, and May 31, 2006 (100 per year). Numbers of male and female participants in each study and presence or absence of analysis by sex (covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis, or sex-specific reporting) were recorded. Sex-specific studies were evaluated to determine whether the exclusion of one sex was biologically necessary.

RESULTS

The total sample comprised 546,824 participants, of whom 73% were female; 36 studies were male-only, 78 were female-only. Of the participants in 286 studies that were not sex-specific, 56% were female. Of 114 sex-specific studies, the segregation by sex was deemed to be biologically necessary in 62%, ie, the research related directly to male or female biological function. More than one-quarter (28%) of studies with 30 participants or more published covariate adjustment or subgroup analysis by sex; 7% included sex-specific reporting of results.

CONCLUSION

We found no routine exclusion of women; however, few publications analyzed results by sex. Some studies excluded women or men for apparently arbitrary reasons. Research performed with male-only participants differed in nature and size from that performed with female-only participants. These data indicate the need to track the sex of research participants. In addition, they provide the basis for assessing appropriate inclusion of men and women in research and for comparing any relationship between different international regulatory models and the rates of female participation in research.

Why can't a woman be more like a man?

Clinical pharmacology is finally crossing the last frontier--the recognition that men and women are different, not just in outward appearance, but also in the way in which they handle drugs. As outlined by Janice Schwartz in this issue, sex differences in drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are measurable and, in some instances, may even be significant. This is of particular importance in the elderly, a population frequently requiring multiple drugs and dealing with both the social and health aspects of aging.

Examining the impending gap in clinical nursing expertise

Much has been written about current and future nursing shortages and the numerical gap between nurses available and projected nursing needs. Very little analysis has focused on the implications of the pending expertise gap within the nursing workforce. A graying and retiring registered nurse workforce will greatly increase the proportion of novice nurses with minimal experience in bedside practice. The expertise gap will also affect nursing education. This article explores the implications of these phenomena. Without careful planning, efforts to address the numerical shortage may inadvertently worsen the expertise gap, contributing to unsafe care and affecting nursing retention.

Adherence to federal guidelines for reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 requires that NIH-funded clinical trials include women and minorities as subjects; other federal agencies have adopted similar guidelines. The objective of this study was to determine the current level of compliance with these guidelines in federally funded randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials published in nine influential medical journals in 2004 were identified by PubMed search. Studies where individuals were not the unit of analysis, those begun before 1994, and those not receiving federal funding were excluded. Included studies were examined to determine sample characteristics and presence of subgroup reporting.

RESULTS

PubMed located 589 published papers. After exclusion of ineligible papers, 69 remained for analysis. Among 46 clinical studies enrolling both men and women, women were generally underrepresented, comprising on average 37% of the sample and only 24% of the sample when analysis was restricted to drug trials. Eighty-seven percent of the studies did not report any outcomes by sex or include sex as a covariate in modeling. Among all 69 studies, 18% did not break down sample sizes by racial and ethnic groups, and 87% did not provide any analysis by racial or ethnic groups. Only 5 studies indicated that the generalizability of their results may be limited by lack of diversity among those studied.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings illustrate inadequate compliance with the NIH guidelines. Researchers, editors, and journal audiences share the responsibility of ensuring compliance with our country's policies regarding federally funded research to effect healthcare improvements for all.

On evidence and evidence-based medicine: lessons from the philosophy of science

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement is touted as a new paradigm in medical education and practice, a description that carries with it an enthusiasm for science that has not been seen since logical positivism flourished (circa 1920-1950). At the same time, the term "evidence-based medicine" has a ring of obviousness to it, as few physicians, one suspects, would claim that they do not attempt to base their clinical decision-making on available evidence. However, the apparent obviousness of EBM can and should be challenged on the grounds of how 'evidence' has been problematised in the philosophy of science. EBM enthusiasm, it follows, ought to be tempered. The post-positivist, feminist, and phenomenological philosophies of science that are examined in this paper contest the seemingly unproblematic nature of evidence that underlies EBM by emphasizing different features of the social nature of science. The appeal to the authority of evidence that characterizes evidence-based practices does not increase objectivity but rather obscures the subjective elements that inescapably enter all forms of human inquiry. The seeming common sense of EBM only occurs because of its assumed removal from the social context of medical practice. In the current age where the institutional power of medicine is suspect, a model that represents biomedicine as politically disinterested or merely scientific should give pause.