May Carl
Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AA.
Sociol Health Illn. 2006 Jul;28(5):513-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00505.x.
Conventional models of 'evidence' for clinical practice focus on the role of randomised controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews as technologies that promote a specific model of rigour and analytic accountability. The assumption that runs through the disciplinary field of health technology assessment (HTA), for example, is that the quantification of evidence about cost and clinical effectiveness is central to rational policy-making and healthcare provision. But what are the conditions in which such knowledge is mediated into decision-making contexts, and how is it understood and used when it gets there? This paper addresses these questions by examining a series of meetings and seminars attended by senior clinical researchers, social care and health service managers in the UK between 1998-2004, and sessions of the House of Commons Health Committee held in 2001 and 2005. These provide contexts in which questions about the value and utility of evidence produced within the frame of HTA were explored in relation to parallel questions about the design, evaluation and implementation of telemedicine and telecare systems. The paper points to the ways that evidence generated in the normative frame of HTA was increasingly seen as one-dimensional and medicalised knowledge that failed to respond to the contingencies of everyday practice in health and social care settings.
临床实践中传统的“证据”模型聚焦于随机对照临床试验和系统评价的作用,将其视为推动特定严谨性和分析问责制模型的技术。例如,贯穿卫生技术评估(HTA)学科领域的假设是,关于成本和临床疗效的证据量化对于合理的政策制定和医疗服务提供至关重要。但是,在何种条件下这些知识被引入决策背景,当其进入决策背景后又是如何被理解和运用的呢?本文通过考察1998年至2004年间英国资深临床研究人员、社会护理和卫生服务管理人员参加的一系列会议和研讨会,以及2001年和2005年下议院卫生委员会的会议来探讨这些问题。这些会议提供了这样的背景,即在其中探讨了关于HTA框架内产生的证据的价值和效用的问题,并将其与远程医疗和远程护理系统的设计、评估和实施等类似问题联系起来。本文指出,在HTA规范框架内产生的证据越来越被视为一维的、医学化的知识,无法应对卫生和社会护理环境中日常实践的各种意外情况。