JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  August 2006

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH August 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences)

From:

Mark Pearson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mark Pearson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:00:38 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

I am in agreement with much of what has been said about the Holmes et al paper - it has a cavalier attitude towards making sweeping statements based on tenuous evidence, and (problematic though such research may be) the apparent unwillingness to conduct methodologically rigorous research on (e.g.) the Cochrane Collaboration does not help their case. Despite all this, I still think that Michael has a point when he says that "the ideas aren't that outrageous... any group defines ways of doing things that excludes others" - maybe this is at the root of the authors' use of the word 'fascist' - they had gotten fed up not being listened to, and thought that courting controversy might be the best option for stimulating debate about the issues concerned (and perhaps it has worked, going by the postings on this and the Evidence Network mailing lists!)

 

I would like to ask some of the other members to elaborate a little more on their postings if possible, in the main because it seems that their experiences of EBM are so polarized that I have trouble reconciling them. Roy states that he has found it "hard to get EBM related concepts into medical education [and] funding for EBM work", whilst Owen states that his involvement with the education of primary care Doctors and Nurses has been notable for its production of practitioners who "just want to be told who to prescribe what to". I think what Owen is getting at here is that despite EBM's ideal of integrating diverse forms of knowledge (research evidence, Doctor's experience, patient's values), the effect has been to produce practitioners unable to think. Yet Roy is concerned that EBM concepts have not affected the practice of medical education enough!

 

In response to Michael (Power), who criticises the rationale in the paper for stating that "98% of literature is deemed scientifically imperfect". Yes, there are some research questions that can only be rigorously answered using a particular method, but there are also many that require the melding of knowledge from a number of different methods in order to be adequately answered. In my own research in Public Health at NICE, broadly stated it may be said that there is concern from the expert committees about (and a somewhat lethargic institutional recognition of) the 'whittling away' of research on the basis of a hierarchy of evidence, only to be left with 1 or 2 RCTs (out of an initial 1000+ citations) upon which to formulate guidance. Is this a justifiable state of affairs, or should there be less 'severe' exclusion criteria so that valuable evidence can be gleaned from 'less rigorous' studies?

 

Mark Pearson

School of Law and Social Science
University of Plymouth
20 Portland Villas 
Drake Circus
Plymouth 
Devon 
PL4 8AA


________________________________

From: Evidence based health (EBH) on behalf of James Woodcock
Sent: Thu 24/08/2006 11:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences)


Michael,

I think you are too harsh on deconstructionism. Any method can be used badly. I think it is noteworthy that their article was not published in a sociology journal, my guess is that it would not have been accepted.

James


Roy, thanks for bring this paper to our attention. 

I wonder how the authors (and their supporters) would feel sitting in a court where the only "evidence" allowed was accusations and testimony by their enemies. This is how fascism works, and this is how Dave Holmes RN PhD, Stuart J Murray PhD,  Amélie Perron RN, PhD(cand) and Geneviève Rail PhD judge evidence-based healthcare. 

To justify this assertion I shall deconstruct one of their deconstructions. They say

"For example, one of the requirements of the Cochrane database is that acceptable research must be based on the RCT design; all other research, which constitutes 98% of the literature, is deemed scientifically imperfect."

The supporting citation is not to the Cochrane Library or Manual of systematic reviews, but to "Traynor M. The oil crisis, risk and evidence-based practice. Nurs Inq 2002; 9: 162-9."  By relying on bigoted and uninformed testimony rather than evidence they demonstrate a fascist disdain for the truth. They also demonstrate a common psychological failing: seeing your own faults magnified in other people. 

Similarly, to talk about "the Cochrane database" in this way demonstrates their ignorance of what the Cochrane Collaboration does. The Cochrane Library has about 6 databases or registers (counting is problematic because it is difficult to tell from the website whether a "product" is a separate database or a filtered view of a larger database). If they wanted to refer to the register of controlled trials they should have said so. But, if they had done this it would have exposed the wooliness of thinking in the accusation that 98% of the scientific literature is imperfect.

Putting in the number "98%" demonstrates another common psychological failing: when you are insecure, throw in a few pseudofacts to cover your ignorance. Have they (or anyone else) tried to count "all other research"? 

My final deconstruction (I could go on, but it would be pointless) is to note the scope of the accusation that "98% of the literature is deemed scientifically imperfect". Holmes et al conveniently do not answer the question "Imperfect for what?".  If it had occurred to them that this is an important detail they would have soon realized that science has a large toolbox of study methods, and good scientists use the appropriate tool for the job. Only a deconstructionist could imagine that an RCT would be used to assess the management of avian flu in a particular country. An observational study is needed. 

Deconstructionists avoid details and facts because they impair their ability to insinuate, slur and slander, and because this might highlight the absence of constructive criticism. This is a pity, because there is much room for improvement in the aspirations, rhetoric and practice of evidence-based healthcare. It is a double pity because people who are aware of the shortcomings of evidence-based healthcare too easily accept fascist-style judgements about evidence-based healthcare. 

Deconstructionism is fascist surrealism.

Michael
========================

Michael Power MD
Clinical Knowledge Author, Guideline Developer and Informatician
Prodigy Knowledge http://www.prodigy.nhs.uk/

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________


Hi Roy et al,
I've read the paper today and found it readable and pertinent. I've been a
UK GP for a large number of years and work in a deprived inner city, have an
MSc in health sciences and clinical evaluation and have taught EBM. I agree
with the paper, in the UK we have edicts from NICE telling us what to do
with our patients, we are even financially rewarded for measuring all sorts
of things, I am told that I 'should' now be screening diabetics for
depression now (never mind the opportunity cost for what else I could do
with that time), we 'should' be getting blood pressures below this and that,
research papers still distort the truth a) by quoting relative risk
reductions and b) by asking research questions that assume longevity is the
gold standard and b) giving undue weight to confidence intervals bolstered
by the internal consistency of the paper's stats, and c) assuming that just
because a risk can be calculated that it is somehow accurate when we know
that's a myth.
Maybe most doctors just like to be told what to do and to be given a cookery
book of recipes to follow. In my experience of teaching primary care doctors
and nurse how to calculate risk, this isn't something they will do in the
course of routine work, they just want to be told who to prescribe what to.
They have often in fact stopped thinking about what they are doing.
The public health specialists I've spoken to don't see individual risk
communication as important, "Thats your problem" they say to me, a GP.
Eminent epidemiologists have hailed the concept of the 'polypill' ignoring
the implication that the majority of the over 40s will be pathologised and
labelled as 'ill', with false expectations of what medicine can deliver
fostering dependence, the EBM movement has embraced and imposed colonic
cancer screening but the papers have inadequately measured changing health
beliefs and the emotional adverse effects .
I accept that EBM and the controlled trial has achieved a huge amount
especially in therapeutics, but I suspect the current mania for
'preventitive' treatment and screening is doing more harm than good in
preventitive medicine terms, and I am keen to avoid doing harm.
I agree with the paper that the discourse of EBM is 'dominating' with its
moral overtones, and that this does actively discourage and exclude
alternative views, and the term fascism may feel nasty because of its
historical connotations but I feel it is in fact justified.
It feels especially healthy to have these sort of ideas aired, I feel they
should be taken seriously.  Just read a few of the editorials in the BMJ,
look closely at the language and the way its coercive intent on clinicians.
This paper in fact feels overdue.
As a way forward, I think we should take  a step back, research findings
should be presented more neutrally, the adverse effects of screening for
example should be explored in more depth, family practitioners should have
more freedom to decide for themselves what treatments feel worthwhile
without being incentivised to follow the rule of EBM edicts like sheep, we
should enable and introduce more variability and innovation not seek to
remove it.
Owen
Owen Dempsey
GP

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager