Evidence-based medicine and the physician-patient dyad

Effectiveness of a web-based virtual journal club to promote medical education (Web-Ed): protocol of a multicentre pragmatic randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

A journal club (JC) is a commonly used medical educational tool. Videoconferencing technology can facilitate the delivery of JCs, however, there remains no evidence on the role of web-based virtual JCs in promoting the acquisition and retention of medical knowledge. The Web-Ed trial aims to evaluate the educational benefits, feasibility and acceptability of web-based virtual JCs compared with traditional face-to-face ones.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Web-Ed is a multicentre pragmatic parallel-group randomised trial across teaching hospitals within the UK National Health Service (NHS). We will enrol qualified doctors or medical students who are >18 years old, proficient in English and able to use online videoconferencing software. Block randomisation will be used to allocate participants in 1:1 ratio to either intervention group. Both groups will be presented with the same educational material and follow a standardised JC structure hosted by nominated moderators and medical faculty members.The primary outcome is the difference in participants' knowledge acquisition and retention 7 days after the JCs evaluated using standardised multiple-choice questions. We will report secondarily on the feasibility and acceptability of the JCs using Likert scale questionnaires. Assuming a 30% drop-out rate, we aim to enrol 75 participants to detect a 20% improvement in knowledge acquisition at 80% power and 5% significance. We will report using mean difference or risk ratio with 95% CIs and assess significance using parametric/non-parametric testing. Where relevant, we will adjust for predetermined characteristics (age, grade of training and session duration) using multivariate regression analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Web-Ed was designed by doctors in training to address their learning needs and evaluate the preferred mode of learning. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. The trial has been approved by the NHS Health Regulation Authority (21/HRA/3361).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18036769.

Complexity of consenting for medical termination of pregnancy: prospective and longitudinal study in Paris

BACKGROUND

We analyzed the patients' perception of prenatal diagnosis of fetal cardiac pathology, and the reasons for choosing to continue with pregnancy despite being eligible to receive a medical termination of pregnancy. We also identified the challenges, the motives interfering in decision-making, and the consequences of the decisions on pregnancy, child and mother.

METHODS

This descriptive, prospective and longitudinal study was conducted in France, amongst pregnant women who wished to continue their pregnancy despite an unfavorable medical advice (incurable fetal cardiac pathologies). Socio-demographic data were collected through a questionnaire. Such questionnaire covered information assessing the parents/mother's perception of prenatal diagnosis, and medical termination of pregnancy, their interpretation of the established diagnosis and their motives for not considering pregnancy termination.

RESULTS

72 eligible patients were analyzed over one year: mean age 33 ± 6.89 years, 47 patients had already given birth to ≥1 healthy child. Mean gestational age at the detection of fetal cardiac pathologies was 30 ± 4.37 weeks of amenorrhea. Patients decided to keep the child after 3 ± 1.25 consultations. 56 (77.78%) patients made their decision with their husbands and 16 made their decision alone. Reasons for declining the medical termination were culpability and responsibility (n = 36), ideologies and convictions (n = 24), mistrust and hope (n = 12). Newborns of 67 patients died with a mean survival duration of 38 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient informed consent should be sought before any decision in neonatology, even if conflicting with the medical team's knowledge and the pregnant mother's benefits. Decisions to accept or decline pregnancy termination depend on the patients' psychological character, ideologies, convictions, and mistrust in the diagnosis/prognosis, or hope in the fetus survival.

Caring for patients with kidney disease: shifting the paradigm from evidence-based medicine to patient-centered care

The last several decades have witnessed the emergence of evidence-based medicine as the dominant paradigm for medical teaching, research and practice. Under an evidence-based approach, populations rather than individuals become the primary focus of investigation. Treatment priorities are largely shaped by the availability, relevance and quality of evidence and study outcomes and results are assumed to have more or less universal significance based on their implications at the population level. However, population-level treatment goals do not always align with what matters the most to individual patients-who may weigh the risks, benefits and harms of recommended treatments quite differently. In this article we describe the rise of evidence-based medicine in historical context. We discuss limitations of this approach for supporting real-world treatment decisions-especially in older adults with confluent comorbidity, functional impairment and/or limited life expectancy-and we describe the emergence of more patient-centered paradigms to address these limitations. We explain how the principles of evidence-based medicine have helped to shape contemporary approaches to defining, classifying and managing patients with chronic kidney disease. We discuss the limitations of this approach and the potential value of a more patient-centered paradigm, with a particular focus on the care of older adults with this condition. We conclude by outlining ways in which the evidence-base might be reconfigured to better support real-world treatment decisions in individual patients and summarize relevant ongoing initiatives.

Longing To Believe In Evidence-Based Medicine: Questions abound about the motivations of researchers who publish their work. But forces are converging to create a more transparent and user-friendly evidence base

Justified or not, evidence-based medicine is again under attack. Critics claim the science is suspect and guidelines are often arbitrary. The push for a transparent, user-friendly evidence base - that also makes use of real-world data - has started, giving hope to payers for evidence they can depend on.