Dear all,
The articles by Felicity Goodyear-Smith and Barry Parsonson that are side
by side with Trish Greenhalgh's are a good starting place as they
highlight the importance of ways to share evidence in practice and extend
decision making. Maybe we could brainstorm this? For instance as decision
aids for co-morbid conditions I am experimenting with using pictograms and
forcefield diagrams and there is a real need to show the benefits of self
management(or not) and how e-health integrates to show knowledge
management and patient satisfaction. The other question is how could we
measure face to face time between Dr and patient as it may really change
the patients outlook and percieved quality of life and even family
dynamics but not show up well as something we measure for an outcome?
There are a lot of surveys used and a few interviews but these don't seem
to get the same status due to bias, self reporting etc but they are
important facets of medical quality.
Best
Amy
On 7/7/12 4:52 AM, "Ollenschläger, Günter (AZQ)" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Thanks for these clear words.
>Hopefully this very relevant discussion will continue without offending
>sb. any more.
>
>Günter Ollenschläger
>German Agency for Quality in Medicine
>Berlin
>www.azq.de<http://www.azq.de>
>
>Am 07.07.2012 um 10:45 schrieb "KEVORK HOPAYIAN"
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
>Hi all,
>I think we should avoid personalising the debate, Greenhalgh's overall
>position is not anything new, many have said similar things about science
>and science-based solutions before. I think we should concentrate on the
>arguments rather than the people. No offence is intended to you, Roy, and
>I append this to your message only because it is the latest in the
>thread, but let us talk about confused arguments rather than confused
>people.
>We should not respond from hurt feelings or a sense of being under siege
>but rather seek to counter the fallacies in the anti-science positions
>being taken by MANY authors (and a few editors).
>
>You may find this story amusing. When I wrote Why Medicine Still Needs a
>Scientific Foundation as a counter to some of these fallacies in the BJGP
>8 years ago, neither of the two pundits commissioned to comment on the
>piece answered my arguments. One questioned my mental health and the
>other, less aggressively but no less condescendingly, expressed
>understanding of my problem!
>
>Best wishes, Kev Hopayian
>
>
>Best wishes, Kev Hopayian
>
>--- On Thu, 5/7/12, Poses, Roy
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>From: Poses, Roy <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>Subject: Re: Editorial by Greenhalgh
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL
>.AC.UK>
>Date: Thursday, 5 July, 2012, 21:01
>
>Greenhalgh seems confused, perhaps deliberately, between true EBM, and
>people who call what they are doing "evidence-based" as a marketing or
>public relations ploy.
>
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Amy Price
><[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>I find this quote particularly onerous "On the other hand, I think
>something sinister is happening, mainly because of the striking
>circumstantial resonance between the reductionism of EBM and the
>reductionism of contemporary policymaking". How is this not a slap in
>the face? I as a newly minted EBHC student have already been forced to
>justify by several as if this was a done deal and we are no better than
>Pharma and their 3b fiasco. People understand this to mean that we are
>using EBM to rob people of their healthcare rights. Junk science medics
>are saying see we are free, people that practice EBM are bought and paid
>for bean counters. If they challenge me, who has not challenged back, has
>little public exposure and is not making any income on this how do you
>think this wave is going to roll for those who have invested their
>research in this practiceŠ.
>
>Everything that can be will be used to control behavior and it is good to
>be aware but more importantly what constructive plans are in place to
>neutralize this in tangible ways? Fanaticism is rampant in all
>disciplines and is a reflection of lack of understanding and personality
>involved. EBHC is not a religion it is a dynamic clinical tool to promote
>understanding/discerning of quality research and clinical care
>
>Amy
>
>
>
>
>--
>Roy M. Poses MD FACP
>President
>Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine (FIRM)
>[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
>Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine
>Alpert Medical School, Brown University
>[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
>
|