Greenhalgh Trisha, Snow Rosamund, Ryan Sara, Rees Sian, Salisbury Helen
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 1;13:200. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x.
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.
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). 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.
循证医学(EBM)正从早期对流行病学的关注逐渐成熟,涵盖更广泛的学科和方法。循证医学的核心是患者,其知情选择长期以来一直被视为至关重要。然而,良好的循证医疗不仅仅是选择。
我们讨论了循证医学中六种潜在的“偏见”,这些偏见可能会无意中贬低患者和护理人员的议程:患者对研究设计的参与有限、在证据等级体系中经验的地位较低、倾向于将以患者为中心的咨询与决策工具的使用混为一谈;对压制患者声音的权力不平衡关注不足、过度强调临床咨询,以及关注寻求和获得护理的人群(而不是那些不寻求或无法获得护理的潜在人群)。为了减少这些“偏见”,循证医学应让患者参与研究,更系统地利用个体(“个人重要”)证据,对咨询采取更跨学科和人文的观点,解决医疗保健接触中的权力不平等动态,支持患者社区,并应对逆护理法则。