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

Adages, Aphorisms, and Proverbs in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy: Tools for Assessment and Treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine how adages, aphorisms, and proverbs arise in psychiatric management and psychotherapy and how they might be used to assist assessment and treatment.

METHODS

A selective narrative literature review was conducted to supplement clinical observations and case vignettes.

RESULTS

Adages appear to act as heuristic cognitive structures that serve as shortcuts for assessing situations, educating, persuading, aiding emotional self-regulation, and influencing courses of action. Some types of psychotherapy-such as dialectical behavior therapy, rational emotive behavior therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy-and self-help programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous routinely utilize adages. The extent to and contexts in which adages spontaneously arise during general psychiatric and psychotherapeutic interactions have not been systematically studied. Clinicians can ascertain patients' favorite adages and appraise how patients respond to other sayings through exploratory questioning and by evoking responses to stock series of adages. As therapeutic tools, adages may help patients more easily conceptualize clinicians' interpretations and insights and may serve as encouraging affirmations.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the potential utility of adages as therapeutic cognitive scaffolds, how patients and clinicians spontaneously use adages, how adages are used therapeutically, and the adages most suitable for particular patients in particular circumstances deserve further study. In psychiatric management and psychotherapy, clinicians' sensitivity to timing and patients' circumstances, culture, and receptivity may determine whether introducing a particular aphorism or proverb will have a positive impact or come across as a vapid and potentially harmful platitude.

The biopsychosociotechnical model: a systems-based framework for human-centered health improvement

The biopsychosocial model is among the most influential frameworks for human-centered health improvement but has faced significant criticism- both conceptual and pragmatic. This paper extends and fundamentally re-structures the biopsychosocial model by combining it with sociotechnical systems theory. The resulting biopsychosociotechnical model addresses key critiques of the biopsychosocial model, providing a more "practical theory" for human-centered health improvement. It depicts the determinants of health as complex adaptive system of systems; includes the the artificial world (technology); and provides a roadmap for systems improvement by: differentiating between "health status" and "health and needs assessment", [promoting problem framing]; explaining health as an emergent property of the biopsychosociotechnical context [imposing a systems orientation]; focusing on "interventions" vs. "treatments" to modify the biopsychosociotechnical determinants of health, [expanding the solution space]; calling for a participatory design process [supporting systems awareness and goal-orientation]; and including intervention management to support the full lifecycle of health improvement.

Training or Synergizing? Complex Systems Principles Change the Understanding of Sport Processes

There is a need to update scientific assumptions in sport to promote the critical thinking of scientists, coaches, and practitioners and improve their methodological decisions. On the basis of complex systems science and theories of biological evolution, a systematization and update of theoretical and methodological principles to transform the understanding of sports training is provided. The classical focus on learning/acquiring skills and fitness is replaced by the aim of increasing the diversity/unpredictability potential of teams/athletes through the development of synergies. This development is underpinned by the properties of hierarchical organization and circular causality of constraints, that is, the nestedness of constraints acting at different levels and timescales. These properties, that integrate bottom-up and top-down all dimensions and levels of performance (from social to genetic), apply to all types of sport, ages, or levels of expertise and can be transferred to other fields (e.g., education, health, management). The team as the main training unit of intervention, the dynamic concept of task representativeness, and the co-adaptive and synergic role of the agents are some few practical consequences of moving from training to synergizing.

Evidence-based medicine-Not a panacea for the problems of a complex adaptive world

The recent sacking of Peter Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration Board raised strong responses and highlights the neglected issue about priorities-maintaining the reputation of the organization or vigorously debating the merits of scientific approaches to find answers to complex problems? The Cochrane approach hales the randomized trial (RCT) as the gold standard research approach and affirms that meta-analysis provides the ultimate proof (or platinum standard) to settle contentious issues confronting the clinician. However, most published medical research is wrong, and critics coined the acronym GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as a meme to highlight the risks of blind faith in the hyped-up procedures of the EBM movement. This paper firstly explores the differences between the prevailing scientific method arising from the linear cause-and-effect assumption and the complex adaptive systems science methods arising from observations that most phenomena emerge from nonlinearity in networked systems. Most medical conditions are characterized by necessary features that by themselves are not sufficient to explain their nature and behaviour. Such nonlinear phenomena require modelling approaches rather than linear statistical and/or meta-analysis approaches to be understood. These considerations also highlight that research is largely stuck at the data and information levels of understanding which fails clinicians who depend on knowledge-the synthesis of information-to apply in an adaptive way in the clinical encounter. Clinicians are constantly confronted with the linked challenges of doing things right and doing the right thing for their patients. EBM and Cochrane with their restrictive approaches are the antithesis to a practice of medicine that is responsive to constantly changing patient needs. As such, the EBM/Cochrane crisis opens a window of opportunity to re-examine the nature of health, illness and disease, and the nature of health care and its systems for the benefits of its professionals and their patients. We are at the cusp of a paradigmatic shift towards an understanding a praxis of health care that takes account of its complexities.

Bowel surgery as a fertility-enhancing procedure in patients with colorectal endometriosis: methodological, pathogenic and ethical issues

Bowel surgery for colorectal endometriosis is being promoted to infertile women without severe sub-occlusive symptoms, with the objective of improving the likelihood of conception. Contrary to rectal shaving, bowel surgery involving full-thickness disk excision and segmental resection entails opening of the intestinal lumen thus increasing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. About 1 in 10 patients undergoing colorectal resection for intestinal endometriosis will experience severe sequelae, including anastomotic dehiscence, rectovaginal fistula formation, and bladder and bowel denervation. Similar to other surgical procedures aiming at enhancing fertility in women with endometriosis, bowel surgery has been introduced into clinical practice without adequate evaluation through randomized controlled trials. According to systematic literature reviews based mainly on case series, the incremental gain of adding bowel procedures to standard surgery appears uncertain in terms of pregnancy rate after both natural attempts and IVF. Considering the methodological drawbacks and the high risk of bias in the available observational studies, it is not possible to exclude the suggestion that the benefit of colorectal surgery has been overestimated. Given the risk of harms to women's health and the important ethical implications, less emphasis should be put on strict statistical significance and more emphasis should be placed on the magnitude of the effect size. In this regard, the published data may not be generalizable, as the surgeons publishing their results may not be representative of all surgeons. Until the results of adequately designed and conducted RCTs are available, colorectal surgery with the sole intent of improving the reproductive performance of infertile patients with intestinal endometriosis should be performed exclusively within research settings and by highly experienced surgeons. Women should be informed about the uncertainties regarding the harms and benefits of bowel surgery in different clinical conditions, and preoperative counselling must be conducted impartially with the objective of achieving a truly shared medical decision.

Decision-making in healthcare as a complex adaptive system

Healthcare transformation requires a change in how the business of healthcare is done. Traditional decision-making approaches based on stable and predictable systems are inappropriate in healthcare because of the complex nature of healthcare delivery. This article reviews challenges to using traditional decision-making approaches in healthcare and how insight from Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) could support healthcare management. The article also provides a system model to guide decision-making in healthcare as a CAS.

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.