Isaac Carol A, Franceschi Amy
Center for Women's Health Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):656-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01043.x.
The purpose of this paper is to explore new perspectives about difficulties academicians may have communicating with clinicians, obtaining subjects, and gaining compliance for their research.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been defined as an integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values; however, clinical observation and experience are placed last in the evidence hierarchy with the randomized controlled trial held as the standard for clinical intervention. This paper describes how the hierarchical model of power in the research community obstructs new areas of knowledge, and how clinicians create resistance. Methods Foucault gave new perspectives describing how power circulates through individuals within organizational discourse. Drawing on literature and experience, and using a framework based on postmodern theoretical concepts, this paper examines patterns of discourse, subjectivity, resistance, and power/knowledge within the physical therapy profession.
The hierarchical discourse of medical knowledge produces opposition rather than collaboration between researcher, clinician, and patient. Alleviating perceptions of dominance and creating connections produces cohesion within medical communities.
Evidence to practice and practice to evidence redefines EBM as a circular integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values.
本文旨在探讨院士在与临床医生沟通、获取研究对象以及促使其研究获得依从性方面可能遇到的困难的新视角。
循证医学(EBM)被定义为最佳研究证据、临床专业知识和患者价值观的整合;然而,临床观察和经验在证据等级体系中排在最后,随机对照试验被视为临床干预的标准。本文描述了研究界的权力等级模式如何阻碍新知识领域的发展,以及临床医生如何产生抵触情绪。方法:福柯提供了新的视角,描述了权力如何在组织话语中的个体间循环。借鉴文献和经验,并使用基于后现代理论概念的框架,本文审视了物理治疗专业内的话语模式、主观性、抵触情绪以及权力/知识。
医学知识的等级话语在研究者、临床医生和患者之间产生的是对立而非合作。减轻主导感并建立联系可在医学群体内部产生凝聚力。
从证据到实践以及从实践到证据将循证医学重新定义为最佳研究证据、临床专业知识和患者价值观的循环整合。