85
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine

      research-article
        , , , ,
      BMC Medicine
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is maturing from its early focus on epidemiology to embrace a wider range of disciplines and methodologies. At the heart of EBM is the patient, whose informed choices have long been recognised as paramount. However, good evidence-based care is more than choices.

          Discussion

          We discuss six potential ‘biases’ in EBM that may inadvertently devalue the patient and carer agenda: limited patient input to research design, low status given to experience in the hierarchy of evidence, a tendency to conflate patient-centred consulting with use of decision tools; insufficient attention to power imbalances that suppress the patient’s voice, over-emphasis on the clinical consultation, and focus on people who seek and obtain care (rather than the hidden denominator of those that do not seek or cannot access care).

          Summary

          To reduce these ‘biases’, EBM should embrace patient involvement in research, make more systematic use of individual (‘personally significant’) evidence, take a more interdisciplinary and humanistic view of consultations, address unequal power dynamics in healthcare encounters, support patient communities, and address the inverse care law.

          Related collections

          Most cited references102

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature.

            Communication can be seen as the main ingredient in medical care. In reviewing doctor-patient communication, the following topics are addressed: (1) different purposes of medical communication; (2) analysis of doctor-patient communication; (3) specific communicative behaviors; (4) the influence of communicative behaviors on patient outcomes; and (5) concluding remarks. Three different purposes of communication are identified, namely: (a) creating a good inter-personal relationship; (b) exchanging information; and (c) making treatment-related decisions. Communication during medical encounters can be analyzed by using different interaction analysis systems (IAS). These systems differ with regard to their clinical relevance, observational strategy, reliability/validity and channels of communicative behavior. Several communicative behaviors that occur in consultations are discussed: instrumental (cure oriented) vs affective (care oriented) behavior, verbal vs non-verbal behavior, privacy behavior, high vs low controlling behavior, and medical vs everyday language vocabularies. Consequences of specific physician behaviors on certain patient outcomes, namely: satisfaction, compliance/adherence to treatment, recall and understanding of information, and health status/psychiatric morbidity are described. Finally, a framework relating background, process and outcome variables is presented.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence.

              We completed a systematic search of the epidemiologic literature on built environment and obesity and identified 63 relevant papers, which were then evaluated for the quality of between-study evidence. We were able to classify studies into one of two primary approaches for defining place and corresponding geographic areas of influence: those based on contextual effects derived from shared pre-determined administrative units and those based on individually unique geographic buffers. The 22 contextual papers evaluated 80 relations, 38 of which did not achieve statistical significance. The 15 buffer papers evaluated 40 relations, 24 of which did not achieve statistical significance. There was very little between-study similarity in methods in both types of approaches, which prevented estimation of pooled effects. The great heterogeneity across studies limits what can be learned from this body of evidence. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                trish.greenhalgh@phc.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1741-7015
                1 September 2015
                1 September 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 200
                Affiliations
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG UK
                Article
                437
                10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x
                4556220
                26324223
                06811429-2518-4a2c-92a9-c4b71a496569
                © Greenhalgh et al. 2015

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 12 May 2015
                : 24 July 2015
                Categories
                Debate
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article