Rethinking bias and truth in evidence-based health care

Inconsistent decision making in dental caries diagnosis and treatment: A case-based questionnaire survey

Background and Aims

Delayed implementation of new knowledge into clinical practice poses patient safety risks. This study investigates agreement on use of the dental caries interventions, sealing, and stepwise excavation.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey, based on 11 constructed cases with descriptions of patient symptoms, radiographic, and clinical findings. Interrater agreement on dental caries- and pulp diagnoses and interventions were measured with Cohen's and Light's κ. The data collection period was September 28 to November 5, 2021. To explore variations in use and knowledge factors, we examined Danish dentists' attitudes toward continuing education.

Results

Based on 243 responses, moderate interrater agreement for dental caries and pulp diagnoses and weak agreement on interventions were seen. The agreement with the gold standard for caries was moderate. No agreement was found for dental pulp diagnosis, and for interventions the agreement was weak. No pattern in agreement with the gold standard was seen in relation to case difficulty level. The majority reported knowing of and using stepwise excavation, in conflict with findings that less than half chose stepwise excavation in cases, where considered appropriate. One in four (25%) reported to be unfamiliar with sealing, and half (50%) use sealing regularly. Better access to continuing education and for universities to offer continuing education as alternatives to one-sided private market were requested.

Conclusion

Some patients may receive too radical treatment despite available less invasive evidence-based effective treatments. Dentists acknowledge the importance of continuing education. Easier access and perhaps more incentives for seeking out high-quality continuing education from trustworthy sources are needed.

Bias in assessment of co-occurring mental disorder in individuals with intellectual disabilities: Theoretical perspectives and implications for clinical practice

Influence from bias is unavoidable in clinical decision-making, and mental health assessment seems particularly vulnerable. Individuals with intellectual disabilities have increased risk of developing co-occurring mental disorder. Due to the inherent difficulties associated with intellectual disabilities, assessment of mental health in this population often relies on a different set of strategies, and it is unclear how these may affect risk of bias. In this theoretical paper, we apply recent conceptualisations of bias in clinical decision-making to the specific challenges and strategies in mental health assessment in intellectual disabilities. We suggest that clinical decision-making in these assessments is particularly vulnerable to bias, including sources of bias present in mental health assessment in the general population, as well as potential sources of bias which may be specific to assessments in this population. It follows that to manage potential bias, triangulating information from multi-informant, multi-method, interdisciplinary assessment strategies is likely to be necessary.

Features that hindered the capacity development of a national prostate cancer service

Introduction

In Scotland, prostate cancer services have struggled to meet demand, and urological cancer services have missed Scottish Government waiting time targets to a greater extent than other cancer services. This study provides understanding of the capacity development needs of a national prostate cancer service including why the service had been unable to adapt to meet demand and how capacity could be developed.

Methods

Delphi technique was applied to a purposive sample of prostate cancer clinicians working across Scotland between 2015 and 2017. Interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals involved in delivery of care to people with prostate cancer including General Practitioners, followed by questionnaires which were distributed to Specialist Nurses, Oncologists and Urologists involved in delivering specialist prostate cancer services within NHS Scotland. Findings are reported from interviews analysed using a directed approach to content analysis, followed by three rounds of iterative online questionnaires analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Reform is needed to meet demand within prostate cancer services in Scotland. Barriers to capacity development included: lack of shared understanding of quality of care between policy makers and healthcare professionals; lack of leadership of service developments nationally and regionally; and difficulties in drawing on other capacities to support the service. Cohesive working and a need for efficient training for nurse specialists were needed to develop capacity. Consensus was reached for development of national working groups to set standards for quality care (100% agreement) and further development of existing regional working groups (100% agreement) to implement this care (91% agreement), which should include input from primary and community care practitioners (100% agreement) to meet demand.

Discussion

This work provides important understanding of barriers and facilitators to service development across a national service, including highlighting the importance of a shared vision for quality care between policy makers and healthcare professionals. Mechanisms to support service change are identified.

Indigenous mental healthcare and human rights abuses in Nigeria: The role of cultural syntonicity and stigmatization

Background

Indigenous mental healthcare using traditional non-western methods termed "unorthodox approaches" has been observed in Nigeria historically. This has been largely due to a cultural preference for spiritual or mystical rather than biomedical formulations of mental disorder. Yet, there have been recent concerns about human rights abuses within such treatment settings as well as their tendency to perpetuate stigmatization.

Aim

The aim of this review was to examine the cultural framework for indigenous mental healthcare in Nigeria, the role of stigmatization in its utilization and interrogate the issues of human rights abuses within a public mental health context.

Methods

This is a non-systematic narrative review of published literature on mental disorders, mental health service utilization, cultural issues, stigma, and indigenous mental healthcare. Media and advocacy reports related to human rights abuses in indigenous mental health treatment settings were also examined. International conventions on human rights and torture, national criminal legislation, constitutional provisions on fundamental rights and medical ethics guidelines relevant to patient care within the country were examined in order to highlight provisions regarding human rights abuses within the context of care.

Results

Indigenous mental healthcare in Nigeria is culturally syntonic, has a complex interaction with stigmatization and is associated with incidents of human rights abuses especially torture of different variants. Three systemic responses to indigenous mental healthcare in Nigeria include: orthodox dichotomization, interactive dimensionalization, and collaborative shared care. Conclusions: Indigenous mental healthcare is endemic in Nigeria. Orthodox dichotomization is unlikely to produce a meaningful care response. Interactive dimensionalization provides a realistic psychosocial explanation for the utilization of indigenous mental healthcare. Collaborative shared care involving measured collaboration between orthodox mental health practitioners and indigenous mental health systems offers an effective as well as cost-effective intervention strategy. It reduces harmful effects of indigenous mental healthcare including human rights abuses and offers patients a culturally appropriate response to their problems.

Biases in bioethics: a narrative review

Given that biases can distort bioethics work, it has received surprisingly little and fragmented attention compared to in other fields of research. This article provides an overview of potentially relevant biases in bioethics, such as cognitive biases, affective biases, imperatives, and moral biases. Special attention is given to moral biases, which are discussed in terms of (1) Framings, (2) Moral theory bias, (3) Analysis bias, (4) Argumentation bias, and (5) Decision bias. While the overview is not exhaustive and the taxonomy by no means is absolute, it provides initial guidance with respect to assessing the relevance of various biases for specific kinds of bioethics work. One reason why we should identify and address biases in bioethics is that it can help us assess and improve the quality of bioethics work.

Challenges and future directions in the measurement of evidence-based practice: Qualitative analysis of umbrella review findings

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: An important aspect of scholarly discussions about evidence-based practice (EBP) is how EBP is measured. Given the conceptual and empirical developments in the study of EBP over the last 3 decades, there is a need to better understand how to best measure EBP in educational and clinical contexts. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the main challenges, recommendations for practice, and areas of future research in the measurement of EBP across the health professions as reported by systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data obtained in the context of a previously published umbrella review that aimed to compare SRs on EBP measures. Two reviewers independently extracted excerpts from the results and discussion/conclusion sections of the 10 included SRs that aligned with the three research aims. An iterative six-phase reflexive thematic analysis according to Braun and Clarke was conducted.

RESULTS

Our thematic analysis produced five themes describing the main challenges associated with measuring EBP, four themes outlining main recommendations for practice, and four themes representing areas of future research. Challenges include limited psychometric testing and validity evidence for existing EBP measures; limitations with the self-report format; lack of construct clarity of EBP measures; inability to capture the complexity of the EBP process and outcomes; and the context-specific nature of EBP measures. Reported recommendations for practice include acknowledging the multidimensionality of EBP; adapting EBP measures to the context and re-examining the validity argument; and considering the feasibility and acceptability of measures. Areas of future research included the development of comprehensive, multidimensional EBP measures and the need for expert consensus on the operationalization of EBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that existing measures may be insufficient in capturing the multidimensional, contextual and dynamic nature of EBP. There is a need for a clear operationalization of EBP and an improved understanding and application of validity theory.

Miasmas, mental models and preventive public health: some philosophical reflections on science in the COVID-19 pandemic

When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, it is likely to show that the mental models held by scientists sometimes facilitated their thinking, thereby leading to lives saved, and at other times constrained their thinking, thereby leading to lives lost. This paper explores some competing mental models of how infectious diseases spread and shows how these models influenced the scientific process and the kinds of facts that were generated, legitimized and used to support policy. A central theme in the paper is the relative weight given by dominant scientific voices to probabilistic arguments based on experimental measurements versus mechanistic arguments based on theory. Two examples are explored: the cholera epidemic in nineteenth century London-in which the story of John Snow and the Broad Street pump is retold-and the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and early 2021-in which the evidence-based medicine movement and its hierarchy of evidence features prominently. In each case, it is shown that prevailing mental models-which were assumed by some to transcend theory but were actually heavily theory-laden-powerfully shaped both science and policy, with fatal consequences for some.

Molecular Screening and Analysis Reveal Novel Oral Site-Specific Locations for the Cariogenic Pathogen Scardovia wiggsiae

Introduction: Scardovia wiggsiae (SW) is a newly identified cariogenic pathogen associated with severe early childhood caries and oral disease. New studies have confirmed the presence of this organism among clinical samples from both pediatric and adult patients. However, the recent discovery of this organism has left researchers with only limited information available regarding the prevalence of this organism—and virtually no information regarding oral site-specific locations. Based upon this lack of information, the overall objective of this study was to perform an oral site-specific analysis of SW prevalence from clinical samples. Methods: Using an approved human subjects protocol, samples (n = 60) from an existing saliva and site-specific biorepository were identified and screened for SW presence using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). These data were summarized and subsequently analyzed for correlations with demographic (age, sex, race or ethnicity) or clinical (body mass index or BMI, primary/mixed/permanent dentition, orthodontic brackets) variables. Results: These data revealed that average DNA concentrations from all sample sites (saliva, dorsum of tongue, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), biofilm of upper buccal molar, and biofilm of lower lingual incisor) ranged between 13.74 and 14.69 μg/μL, with an overall average of 14.30 μg/μL ± 1.12 (standard error or SE). qPCR screening revealed a total of n = 34/60 or 56.7% of patient samples harboring SW. A total of n = 71/170 specific oral sites harbored this organism, with the majority of the SW-positive participant samples harboring SW at more than one oral site, n = 22/34 or 64.7%, including non-traditional sites such as GCF and the dorsum of the tongue. Weak correlations were found between specific SW outcomes in GCF and type of dentition (permanent; R = 0.2444), as well as SW outcomes in saliva with age (R = 0.228) and presence of orthodontic brackets (R = 0.2118). Conclusions: This study may be among the first to provide oral site-specific analysis to reveal the prevalence and location of Scardovia among clinical patient samples. Moreover, these data also provide some of the first evidence to suggest this organism may be present not only in traditional supragingival tooth-associated biofilm sites, but also in non-traditional oral sites including the dorsum of the tongue and the gingival crevice. Based upon these results, these data may represent a significant advance in our understanding of the potential sites and locations that harbor this organism and may help contribute to our understanding of the prevalence, distribution and potential for the development of oral disease among clinic patients.

Clinical guidelines and the pursuit of reducing epistemic uncertainty. An ethnographic study of guideline development panels in three countries

PURPOSE

To explore, from a philosophy of knowledge perspective, the contribution of the guideline development process to reducing epistemic uncertainty in clinical decision-making - defined as the challenge of applying evidence to patients, dealing with conflicting information and determining the level of confidence in a medical conclusion.

METHODS

Longitudinal ethnographic study of national guideline development panels. Fieldnotes were collected from 19 panel meetings in UK, Netherlands and Norway (~120 h of observation) between September 2016 and February 2019. Draft guidelines, review protocols and background material were collated (~200 documents). Data were analyzed thematically to gain familiarity and then theorized using concepts of knowledge development and use and clinical decision-making.

RESULTS

Guideline development panels in all three countries wrestled with epistemic tensions - notably between the desire to "purify" an assumed external truth (for example by limiting included evidence to high-quality randomized controlled trials) and a more pragmatic and pluralist approach that drew on a wider range of evidence including qualitative research, real-world data, clinical experience and patient testimony. Detailed analysis of the process by which particular guideline recommendations were constructed allowed us to draw out the implications of these tensions for guideline users in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Guideline development panels apply multiple - often conflicting - understandings of knowledge, inference and truth in an attempt to reduce epistemic uncertainty. Guidelines makers, clinicians, scientists and students should engage critically and reflexively with the philosophical assumptions that underpin guideline development and inductive inference to build capability to deal with clinical complexity.

Practice-based learning: an appropriate means to acquire the attitude and skills for evidence-based medicine

OBJECTIVES

  To evaluate a practice-based, self-directed EBM-course in an undergraduate medical curriculum in terms of EBM attitude and motivation beliefs.

METHODS

This study was conducted in a 4-week course of the first-year undergraduate medical curriculum, which takes place twice in an academic year. One group of students (n=210) received a normal EBM-module in November. A practice-based EBM-module was implemented in January for another group of students (n=130). We approached all students following the courses for participation in our research project. In a quasi-experimental design, a validated survey was used to assess students' EBM task value and self-efficacy on a 7-point Likert-scale. In the experimental group, complementary qualitative data were gathered on attitude and motivation by open evaluative questions.

RESULTS

Overall response rate was 93,5%, resulting in 191 students in the control group and 127 students in the experimental group. We did not find differences between the groups in terms of EBM task value and self-efficacy. However, the experimental group showed a higher increased perception of the importance of EBM in decision making in clinical practice (60.0% vs 77.2%; χ²(1, N=318) = 8.432, p=0.004). These students obtained a better understanding of the complexities and time-consuming nature of EBM in medical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The practice-based EBM-course helps students to reflect on practice and knowledge critically. Our findings indicate that integrating clinical practice in the undergraduate learning environment fosters attitude and motivation, suggesting that practice-based learning in EBM education may advance student development as a critically reflective practitioner.

Personalized Medicine, Disruptive Innovation, and "Trailblazer" Guidelines: Case Study and Theorization of an Unsuccessful Change Effort

Policy Points For complex reasons, the promise of "precision medicine" based on molecular pathways remains unrealized for many conditions. Clinical practice guidelines (theoretically, at least) can act as "trailblazers" to introduce tests and treatments that reflect precision medicine discoveries. We describe a detailed case study from the United Kingdom in which such an attempt was (so far) unsuccessful and show how this case provides generalizable lessons. Policymakers should be wary of using clinical practice guidelines as the sole, or even the primary, lever for introducing precision medicine.

CONTEXT

Precision medicine, which addresses underlying molecular mechanisms of disease, depends on new technologies that measure specific biomarkers, leading (it is anticipated) to more accurate diagnosis, patient stratification, and tailored treatment. These technologies can be disruptive-that is, they make possible, and often require, radical changes to clinical practice and service organization-thereby improving quality, safety, or efficiency of care. Clinical practice guidelines may act as "trailblazers," introducing and legitimizing novel technologies and practices.

METHODS

We describe a case study of an attempt by academic researchers to radically change asthma management in the United Kingdom using a precision medicine biomarker (fractional exhaled nitric oxide, FeNO), measured using a portable breath device. We collected a wide-ranging data set that included more than 100 documents, 61 interviews, and 150 hours of ethnographic observation, and we analyzed it using technology-enhanced strong structuration theory (TESST).

FINDINGS

Our study describes a so-far unsuccessful attempt by academic respiratory medicine researchers to pave the way for a precision medicine approach to asthma using a government-endorsed national guideline. These researchers considered asthma management, especially in primary care, to be characterized by overdiagnosis and poor tailoring of treatment; engaged a national guideline development body in an effort to fix this problem; and ensured that the guideline required primary care clinicians to use FeNO technology for diagnosis and monitoring. However, clinicians working outside the tertiary referral centers did not accept, or agree to enact, the vision of precision medicine inscribed in the guideline-for multiple professional, operational, and economic reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

"Trailblazer" guidelines, in which new technologies are recommended, may succeed as catalysts of change only in a limited way for interested individuals and groups. In the absence of a wider program of professionally led and adequately resourced change efforts, such guidelines will lack meaning, legitimacy, and authority among intended users and may be strongly resisted.

What is "shared" in shared decision-making? Philosophical perspectives, epistemic justice, and implications for health professions education

BACKGROUND

Drawing from the philosophical work of Hans-Georg Gadamer and the perspectives of theorists Mikhail Bakhtin and Kenneth Burke, the aim of this paper is to critically reflect on the meaning of the word "shared."

METHOD

The authors draw on the concept of epistemic justice, which they argue permeates the clinical encounter, to discuss how various forms of, and claims to, knowledge may influence the attainement of shared decision-making in health care contexts. The specific objectives are twofold: first, the authors draw key concepts from key Gadamerian, Burkean, and Bakhtinian philosophical perspectives to consider shared decision-making in relation to two types of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutic epistemic injustice. Second, building on philosopher Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy, the authors emphasize that major changes in educational structures and systems are required to promote the critical reflexivity required to address issues of epistemic justice, in the broader pursuit of authentic shared decision-making.

RESULTS

They propose three main areas of focus for helath professions education: (a) changes in content (moving from a focus on biomedical knowledge to more content on social sciences) and methods of teaching (more dialogue and the creation of moments of dissonance); (b) a re-examination of teachers' role in promoting epistemic justice; and (c) inclusion of patients as partners.

CONCLUSIONS

Without major transformation in what, how, and with whom we teach, future clinicians may be unprepared to enact shared decision-making in a manner that does justice to the various ways of knowing.

[Not Available]

There is now broad agreement that ideas like person-centred care, patient expertise and shared decision-making are no longer peripheral to health discourse, fine ideals or merely desirable additions to sound, scientific clinical practice. Rather, their incorporation into our thinking and planning of health and social care is essential if we are to respond adequately to the problems that confront us: they need to be seen not as "ethical add-ons" but core components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. This, the tenth philosophy thematic edition of the journal, presents papers conducting urgent research into the social context of scientific knowledge and the significance of viewing clinical knowledge not as something that "sits within the minds" of researchers and practitioners, but as a relational concept, the product of social interactions. It includes papers on the nature of reasoning and evidence, the on-going problems of how to 'integrate' different forms of scientific knowledge with broader, humanistic understandings of reasoning and judgement, patient and community perspectives. Discussions of the epistemological contribution of patient perspectives to the nature of care, and the crucial and still under-developed role of phenomenology in medical epistemology, are followed by a broad range of papers focussing on shared decision-making, analysing its proper meaning, its role in policy, methods for realising it and its limitations in real-world contexts.

Ten tips for conducting focused ethnography in medical education research

Background: Medical education researchers increasingly use qualitative methods, such as ethnography to understand shared practices and beliefs in groups. Focused ethnography (FE) is gaining popularity as a method that examines sub-cultures and familiar settings in a short time. However, the literature on how FE is conducted in medical education is limited. Aim: This paper provides 10 practical tips for conducting FE in medical education research. Methods: The tips were developed based on our expertise in ethnographic research and existing literature. Results: The 10 tips include: (1) Know the difference, (2) Build relationships before you start, (3) Have shared purpose and knowledge translation strategies with your stakeholders (4) Practice being reflexive, (5) Align research question with methodology, (6) Prepare your fieldwork, (7) Use a variety of methods for data collection, (8) Consider context on micro, meso, and macro levels, (9) Use triangulation, and (10) Provide a 'thick description', Conclusions: These 10 tips give practical guidance to medical educators in thinking about how and when to conduct FE.

Mismatches in the production of a scoping review: Highlighting the interplay of (in)formalities

The move towards evidence-based medicine has generated rapid growth in reviews of research literature. The scoping review is one of the new literature reviews that has emerged from traditional systematic reviews. A scoping review aims to map the literature on a particular topic or research area. As scoping reviews become more popular, methods for conducting scoping reviews are rapidly increasing. In light of these recent developments, this paper investigates how complex scoping reviews are conducted. As an analytical framework, we draw on previous work about (in)formalities (ie, the interplay of formalities and informal judgments in scientific research). We show how the process of constructing a population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO), searching and selecting relevant literature, requires informal deliberations, judgments, and choices that are not considered in the formal methodology used when conducting scoping reviews. This paper asks the following questions: What could be learned from this empirical case of conducting a scoping review by applying theoretical insights about (in)formalities? What are the possible implications for future development of scoping reviews? We provide three suggestions. First, PICO served as a starting point for the review process, supported decisions continuously during the process, and served as an image of the end product of the scoping review. We suggest that these three roles need to be considered to a larger extent in the future development of scoping review methods. Second, the contextual constraints of scoping reviews such as time, resources, and the jurisdiction of the commissioning agency need to be made explicit in the reporting of scoping reviews. Third, the findings in this paper indicate that the evolving emphasis on formalization in both the methods the reporting practices of scoping reviews could benefit if complemented with a more pronounced role for informalities. In addition, highlighting the informalities in scoping review methods may serve to create more realistic expectations of the methods, the validity, and the potentials of scoping reviews.

Biases distorting priority setting

Modern health care faces an ever widening gap between technological possibilities and available resources. To handle this challenge we have constructed elaborate systems for health policy making and priority setting. Despite such systems many health care systems provide a wide range of documented low-value care while being unable to afford emerging high-value care. Accordingly, this article sets out asking why priority setting in health care has so poor outcomes while relevant systems are well developed and readily available. It starts to identify some rational and structural explanations for the discrepancy between theoretical efforts and practical outcomes in priority setting. However, even if these issues are addressed, practical priority setting may still not obtain its goals. This is because a wide range of irrational effects is hampering priority setting: biases. By using examples from the literature the article identifies and analyses a wide range of biases indicating how they can distort priority setting processes. Overuse, underuse, and overinvestment, as well as hampered disinvestment and undermined priority setting principles are but some of the identified implications. Moreover, while some biases are operating mainly on one level, many are active on the micro, meso and on the macro level. Identifying and analyzing biases affecting priority setting is the first, but crucial, step towards improving health policy making and priority setting in health care.

Moral entrepreneurship, the power-knowledge nexus, and the Cochrane "crisis"

BACKGROUND

In 2018, a so-called crisis developed in the international network of systematic reviewers known as Cochrane. It was widely depicted in terms of two competing narratives-"bad behaviour" by one member of Cochrane's Governing Board and scientific and moral decline within Cochrane.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to distil insights on the structural issues underpinning the crisis, without taking a definitive position on the accuracy of either narrative.

APPROACH AND DATASET

In this paper, we draw on (among other theories) Becker's notion of moral entrepreneurship and Foucault's conceptualisation of power to analyse the claims and counterclaims made by different parties. Our dataset consisted of publicly available materials (blogs, journal articles, newspaper articles) to end 2018, notably those relating to the expulsion of one Governing Board member.

MAIN FINDINGS

Both narratives include strong moral claims about the science of systematic review and the governance of scientific organizations. The expelled individual and his supporters defined good systematic reviews in terms of a particular kind of methodological rigour and elimination of bias, and good governance largely in terms of measures to achieve independence from industry influence. Most of Cochrane's Governing Board and their sympathizers evaluated systematic reviews according to a broader range of criteria, incorporating factors such as attention to relationships among reviewers and reflexivity and dialogue around scientific and other judgements. They viewed governance partly in terms of accountability to an external advisory group. Power-knowledge alignments in Cochrane have emerged from, and contributed to, a particular system of meaning which is now undergoing evolution and challenge.

CONCLUSION

Polarizing Cochrane's "crisis" into two narratives, only one of which is true, is less fruitful than viewing it in terms of a duality consisting of tensions between the two positions, each of which has some validity. Having framed the conflict as primarily philosophical and political rather than methodological and procedural, we suggest how Cochrane and its supporters and critics might harness their tensions productively.

Too much or too little medicine? Overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, overtreatment and undertreatment in respiratory diseases

At a time when technical possibilities for medical investigations are plentiful and ever expanding, there is growing awareness that more is not always better and that “too much medicine” may be harmful. In recent years, the global Choosing Wisely educational campaign has aimed to bring attention to unnecessary healthcare. Unnecessary healthcare includes overtesting, overdiagnosis and overtreatment [1]. The March issue of Breathe aims to challenge us to rethink our clinical practice, to reflect on the evidence, and to identify potential cognitive biases that might influence us to provide “too much” or “too little” medicine [2].

The March issue of Breathe focuses on overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, overtreatment and undertreatment in respiratory diseaseshttp://ow.ly/63OW30ntCeu

Treating real people: Science and humanity

Something important is happening in applied, interdisciplinary research, particularly in the field of applied health research. The vast array of papers in this edition are evidence of a broad change in thinking across an impressive range of practice and academic areas. The problems of complexity, the rise of chronic conditions, overdiagnosis, co-morbidity, and multi-morbidity are serious and challenging, but we are rising to that challenge. Key conceptions regarding science, evidence, disease, clinical judgement, and health and social care are being revised and their relationships reconsidered: Boundaries are indeed being redrawn; reasoning is being made "fit for practice." Ideas like "person-centred care" are no longer phrases with potential to be helpful in some yet-to-be-clarified way: Theorists and practitioners are working in collaboration to give them substantive import and application.

Rethinking bias and truth in evidence-based health care

In modern philosophy, the concept of truth has been problematized from different angles, yet in evidence-based health care (EBHC), it continues to operate hidden and almost undisputed through the linked concept of "bias." To prevent unwarranted relativism and make better inferences in clinical practice, clinicians may benefit from a closer analysis of existing assumptions about truth, validity, and reality. In this paper, we give a brief overview of several important theories of truth, notably the ideal limit theorem (which assumes an ultimate and absolute truth towards which scientific inquiry progresses), the dominant way truth is conceptualized in the discourse and practice of EBHC. We draw on Belgian philosopher Isabelle Stengers' work to demonstrate that bias means one thing if one assumes a world of hard facts "out there," waiting to be collected. It means something different if one takes a critical view of the knowledge-power complex in research trials. Bias appears to have both an unproductive aspect and a productive aspect as argued by Stengers and others: Facts are not absolute but result from an interest, or interesse: a bias towards a certain line of questioning that cannot be eliminated. The duality that Stengers' view invokes draws attention to and challenges the assumptions underlying the ideal limit theory of truth in several ways. Most importantly, it casts doubt on the ideal limit theory as it applies to the single case scenario of the clinical encounter, the cornerstone of EBHC. To the extent that the goal of EBHC is to support inferencing in the clinical encounter, then the ideal limit as the sole concept of truth appears to be conceptually insufficient. We contend that EBHC could usefully incorporate a more pluralist understanding of truth and bias and provide an example how this would work out in a clinical scenario.