Suppr超能文献

循证医学中针对患者及护理人员的六种“偏见”

Six 'biases' against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine.

作者信息

Greenhalgh Trisha, Snow Rosamund, Ryan Sara, Rees Sian, Salisbury Helen

机构信息

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

出版信息

BMC Med. 2015 Sep 1;13:200. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x.

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). 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.

摘要

背景

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。

讨论

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。

相似文献

4
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
8
Evidence-based medicine: arguments for and against.循证医学:支持与反对的观点
Emerg Med Australas. 2005 Aug;17(4):307-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2005.00753.x.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
The importance of values in evidence-based medicine.循证医学中价值观的重要性。
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Oct 12;16(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0063-3.
5
Car parking is a clinical quality issue.停车是一个临床质量问题。
BMJ. 2015 Apr 14;350:h1312. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1312.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验