Scales Charles D, Voils Corrine I, Fesperman Susan F, Sur Roger L, Kübler Hubert, Preminger Glenn M, Dahm Philipp
Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
J Urol. 2008 Jun;179(6):2345-9; discussion 2349-50. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.109. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
We investigated urologist perceptions of barriers to implementing evidence-based medicine in clinical practice.
In April 2005 an Internet survey was conducted to assess American Urological Association member attitudes toward evidence-based medicine. This analysis presents the responses to an open-ended question about perceived barriers to implementing evidence-based clinical practice in urology. Two raters developed a coding scheme with 5 main categories of evidence concerns, system level factors, physician factors, patient factors and other barriers. Each rater independently assigned a category to each response. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.
A total of 365 participants (72%) responded to the open-ended question, each providing up to 4 codable responses. Of the group 53% cited concerns about the evidence including the lack thereof, low quality, limited applicability and biased presentation. In addition, 37% reported system level factors such as issues of reimbursement, fear of litigation, problems with implementation, interference/bias by third parties, and expectations and attitudes of other providers as important issues. Physician factors and patient factors were further cited by 28% and 9%, respectively. In terms of the legitimacy of evidence-based medicine 9% expressed skepticism whereas 5% of respondents indicated that they saw no barriers to implementing evidence-based medicine in urology.
Efforts to promote evidence-based medicine in urology should focus not only on the generation of high quality clinical research but also on its unbiased reporting and timely dissemination. Concerted efforts should be made to reduce system level factors that hinder the implementation of evidence-based care.
我们调查了泌尿外科医生对临床实践中实施循证医学障碍的看法。
2005年4月进行了一项网络调查,以评估美国泌尿外科协会成员对循证医学的态度。本分析呈现了对一个开放式问题的回答,该问题是关于泌尿外科实施循证临床实践中感知到的障碍。两名评分者制定了一个编码方案,包括证据相关问题、系统层面因素、医生因素、患者因素和其他障碍5个主要类别。每位评分者独立为每个回答分配一个类别。分歧通过协商解决。
共有365名参与者(72%)回答了开放式问题,每人最多提供4个可编码的回答。在该组中,53%提到了对证据的担忧,包括证据缺乏、质量低、适用性有限和呈现存在偏差。此外,37%报告了系统层面因素,如报销问题、诉讼担忧、实施问题、第三方的干扰/偏差以及其他医疗服务提供者的期望和态度等重要问题。医生因素和患者因素分别被进一步提及的比例为28%和9%。就循证医学的合理性而言,9%表示怀疑,而5%的受访者表示他们认为在泌尿外科实施循证医学没有障碍。
在泌尿外科促进循证医学的努力不仅应专注于高质量临床研究的产生,还应关注其无偏倚报告和及时传播。应共同努力减少阻碍循证医疗实施的系统层面因素。