 |
 |
Hi - thanks for that. Well, I didn't make a mistake: I counted up the names that were in the email for what is being broadcast (and I did preface by asking was that all). It was one you could count up on your fingers, so not making a mistake wasn't too hard. Nor did I say there was 0 other diversity. So that wasn't a mistake either. From the original email I was responding to: *"A meeting has been set up in Oxford with the aim is to define real and rubbish EBM more rigorously. As part of this meeting there will be an open session for all who would like to hear views on real v rubbish EBM from the experts."* It is the open session to which I refer. I know the organisers are comfortable, and I'm sure you will fill up the audience. But my comment stands. Hilda On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jeremy Howick <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear Hilda, > > Thanks for sharing your concerns. I will be facilitating the meeting and > will share a bit more detail about how the meeting came about that may > answer some of your concerns. > > As you may know late in 2013 Trish Greenhalgh (a vociferous critic of > the "club") challenged Carl Heneghan to promote "real versus rubbish" > Evidence-Based Medicine. Although his "club" was being challenged, Carl > thought it would be a good idea to have a meeting between him and Trish to > flesh out what they meant. Isn't it great that people from inside the > "club" are open to challenges and to discussing the idea that EBM might be > "rubbish"! In fact a main aim of this small meeting is to discuss how to > arrange and organise a larger meeting. This small preliminary meeting will > help us leverage the larger symposium. You will see calls for such a > symposium in the upcoming months. > > You also made a few mistaken assumptions in your email that I should > clarify: > > 1. The male/female ratio is not 4:1 but more like 3:1. A few attendees > decided not to give talks so their names are not listed. Moreover, this is > purely due to chance: a woman who was invited could not make it because she > will be abroad, and had she attended the ratio would have been much closer > to equal. > 2. There are 'non-WASPs' as well. I am one of two non-WASPs. > 3. Not only are there people from outside the "club", but there will > absolutely be no consensus or similar statement "from the experts". There > is likely to be an output describing various problems with EBM (the "club"). > > So while I agree with your concerns about "old boy networks" dominating > the EBM agenda, the concern truly does not apply in this case. > > Best wishes, > > Jeremy > > -- > Jeremy Howick PhD > Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine > Department of Primary Care Health Sciences > University of Oxford > New Radcliffe House, 2nd floor > Jericho, OX2 6NW > United Kingdom > website: http://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/researchers/jeremy-howick > > Recent publications: > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.0062599 > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058247 > > http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140519667X,descCd-description.html > > From: Hilda Bastian <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: Hilda Bastian <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thursday, 9 January 2014 17:19 > To: "[log in to unmask]" < > [log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Real .v. Rubbish EBM > > Hi - Does "titles include" mean there are others? > > This may seem overly strong to some, and what I'm saying doesn't only > apply to this particular thing. It's running deeply through EBM in some > countries, but having a global impact. The implications are serious to me. > There's rhetoric, from time to time, but when the rubber hits the road, as > it does here, it's clear that we have a situation where people are > comfortable, when I believe they really shouldn't be. > > It's 2014 and "from the experts" on EBM still has no patient > representative and male:female is 4:1. On cultural and other diversity, > well...... OK, that's a somewhat better gender ratio than I recall Evidence > Live had last year at upper levels, but still. This is not a small line-up: > this is another level. Yes, I can see why this club wants to gather, > but..... > > Four serious questions: Are the women, non-WASP and patient experts in > particular really so invisible to the decision makers? Is this really what > audiences want? What does this say about EBM and issues of power and > privilege? Has someone got evidence that this is not a form of bias that > has serious implications? > > On this topic: the subject is values. Whose values? > > Hilda > > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Ruth Davis <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Tuesday 14th January 2014 >> >> 10:00 -12:30 (Coffee available from 09:30) >> >> Kellogg College, 62 Banbury Road, Oxford >> >> In September 2013 Trish Greenhalgh challenged Carl Heneghan to promote >> 'real versus rubbish EBM' on Twitter. An example of rubbish EBM might be >> (for example) putting a 75 year old on statins because the guidelines say >> you should, with no account of their social situation, comorbidity, life >> expectancy etc. Real EBM from a clinicians perspective would include taking >> patient values and circumstances into account alongside evidence from >> guidelines and from an organizational perspective it would include >> measures to avoid a managerialist, technocratic approach to promoting >> guideline adherence. >> >> A meeting has been set up in Oxford with the aim is to define real and >> rubbish EBM more rigorously. As part of this meeting there will be an open >> session for all who would like to hear views on real v rubbish EBM from >> the experts. >> >> >> >> Spaces a very limited, to register your interest please email >> [log in to unmask] >> >> >> >> Titles include: >> >> Carl Heneghan - Why most research should not reach the appraisal step >> >> Paul Glasziou - Using healthy skepticism in the patient's interests >> >> Jeremy Howick - A new generation of bias in EBM >> >> Des Spence - EBM as a marketing tool for Big Pharma >> >> Neal Maskrey - It is not real versus rubbish, but EBM versus EBM2 >> >> Jon Brassey - An alternative system for systematic review production >> >> Richard Lehman - Patient Centred Evidence - the Unicorn that must be found >> >> Margaret McCartney - Too much treatment for the well, and not enough for >> the sick >> >> Mike Kelly - Philosophical reflections on rubbish EBM >> >> Iona Heath - EBM is a means – but to what end? >> >> Ruth Davis >> >> CEBM Centre Manager >> >> Department of Primary Care Health Sciences >> >> University of Oxford >> >> Tel: 01865 289322 >> >> Tw: @CebmOxford >> >> *www.cebm.ox.ac.uk <http://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk>* >> >> >> >> >> > >