Personally I think the model, properly interpreted, can take on any
intervention. People just don't like to get negative results when they have
been beavering away like mad. But that's life - I think its the sign of a
mature profession to be able to take some bad news.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Bennett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: How do various specialities view EBM?
> Dear Susan,
>
> I tend to agree. Having recently organised an International Symposium on
> Evidence Based Occupational Therapy at which there were therapists from a
> number of different countries present. There was strong debate about what
> constitutes evidence and how an EBP definition applies to the therapies.
> Clearly there are different models of practice that challenge the way EBP
is
> implemented.
> It seems that there is a question about what constitutes 'evidence'. I
agree
> with Clare that the client's perspectives and experiential evidence are
> essential, yet I understand these are acknowledged already as part of the
> EBP definition and thus do not need to be seen as other 'types' of
evidence,
> rather part of the existing process. Perhaps more emphasis on
understanding
> the process of integrating patients perspectives and the way in which
> clinical experience is utilised in the EBP process may help clarify this.
> Understanding clinical reasoning may further help see how the various
> aspects (evidence, client's perspectives & clinical experience) are
> integrated.
>
> Sally Bennett
> Department of Occupational Therapy
> University of Queensland
> St Lucia 4072
> (07) 3365 2652
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: Evidence based health (EBH) is the integration of individual
> knowledge [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2002 23:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: How do various specialities view EBM?
>
>
> This is an interesting discussion how different professions view EBP. I'm
> not sure the definition of evidence is actually different, nor is the
> practice of EBP. If the definition of EBP is "the conscientious, explicit
> and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the
> care of individual patients" (Sackett et al) then then EBP involves the
use
> of evidence, clinical expertise and patient preferences in making
decisions.
> OT and PT, as well as many others, are attempting to utilize these three
> sources of information in clinical decision making. I believe other
> professions strive for the same goals. The inclusion of evidence doesn't
> preclude the use of other sources of information.
> Therefore, I do not believe that other professions are developing their
own
> definitions of EBP, rather trying to develop a useful way of using
evidence
> in daily practice. The implementation of EBP probably varies, due to
> accessibiltiy of information and types of information needed by different
> professions, but not the definition of EBP.
>
> Susan Scherer, MA, PT
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Rehabilitation Medicine
> UCHSC
> 4200 E. Ninth Ave C-244
> Denver, CO 80262
> (303) 372-9137 Phone
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jennie Lou [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:56 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: How do various specialities view EBM?
> >
> >
> > I agree with Clare that other professions are developing their unique
> > definitions of EBP due the nature of their practices. For example,
> > qualitative evidence is being viewed much more heavily in occupational
> > therapy evidence based practice because of client centered practice
> > guideline in OT.
> >
> > *****
> > Jennie Lou, M.D., M.Sc., OTR
> > Associate Professor of Public Health and Occupational Therapy
> > College of Osteopathic Medicine
> > Nova Southeastern University
> > 3200 S. University Dr.
> > Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328
> > *****
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "M.C. TAYLOR" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: How do various specialities view EBM?
> >
> >
> > > Kate
> > >
> > > the other intersting thing is that the various professional
> > groups are
> > > all developing slightly different definitions of EBP, and
> > the nursing
> > > and OT definitions tend to draw on a wider definition of
> > 'evidence' to
> > > include experiential evidence and the client/patient perspective
> > >
> > > clare
> > >
> > > Kate O'Donnell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Aron
> > > >
> > > > Badri has supplied you with an excellent list of
> > references (thanks
> > Badri).
> > > > I would add in several more:
> > > >
> > > > Curtin M, Jaramazovic E. Occupational therapists' views
> > and perceptions
> > of
> > > > evidence-based practice. Br J Occup Ther 2001; 64(5): 214-222.
> > > >
> > > > Jacobson LD, Edwards AGK, Granier SK, Butler CC.
> > Evidence-based medicine
> > > > and general practice. British Journal of General Practice
> > 1997;47:449-52.
> > > > McColl A, Smith H, White P, Field J. General
> > practitioners' perceptions
> > of
> > > > the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. BMJ
> > > > 1998;316:361-5.
> > > > Tomlin Z, Humphrey C, Rogers S. General practitioners'
> > perceptions of
> > > > effective health care. BMJ 1999;318:1532-5.
> > > > Greenhalgh T,.Douglas HR. Experiences of general practitioners and
> > practice
> > > > nurses of training courses in evidence-based health care:
> > a qualitative
> > > > study. British Journal of General Practice 1999;49:536-40.
> > > > Allery LA, Owen PA, Robling MR. Why general practitioners and
> > consultants
> > > > change their clinical practice: a critical incident study. BMJ
> > > > 1997;314:870-4.
> > > >
> > > > As someone who is involved in trying to promote
> > multi-professional EBP
> > > > education, I think it is vitally important that we recognise and
> > > > acknowledge these differing views and perceptions of
> > evidence. On our
> > > > extended national course in Scotland for primary care
> > professionals, we
> > > > spend a lot of time on the first day getting
> > participants, in small
> > groups,
> > > > to discuss where they are coming from and the type(s) of
> > evidence that
> > they
> > > > regard as important. (This incorporates evidence in its
> > widest sense -
> > not
> > > > just published research.) This allows the participants
> > time to reflect
> > and
> > > > value the viewpoints of other professional groups
> > However, I find it
> > much
> > > > harder to recreate that in single stand-alone workshops.
> > What is the
> > > > experience of others?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Kate.
> > > >
> > > > Dr Kate O'Donnell.
> > > > Lecturer in Primary Care R&D.
> > > > Tel: 0141 211 3378/1668.
> > > > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> >
|