Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine
Section snippets
Introduction: A pedagogical and autobiographical trajectory
My personal impetus for beginning to think and write about notions of evidence has been my dual institutional position in two academic departments of public health since 1991 as both observer of the rise of evidence-based medicine and as participant, required (as is usual in multidisciplinary environments) to defend and promote ethnographic and other qualitative approaches to research. Here, I gloss ‘evidence-based medicine’ (henceforth EBM) loosely as referring to the demand that clinical
Critiques of EBM: A typology of alleged limitations
While what ‘EBM’ is continues to be negotiated and broadened—a point central to the argument of this paper—the limitations rather than the benefits of EBM have been the subject of fervent and often polemical debate in the pages of many health practitioners’ journals. Many mainstream medical journals have published articles on the topic, while the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice has emerged as a major site for critique with an annual thematic issue on the EBM debate. I undertook a
Encompassing objections: The evolution of EBM
The previous section provided a brief orientation to major categories of criticism levelled at EBM. As each type of putative limitation has been identified in commentaries and papers, each has progressively been accommodated within the parameters of EBM itself. My review of the literature suggests that criticism has characteristically been countered not by rejection, contestation or entrenchment, but by incorporation. This assimilationist response is fairly characteristic of the way in which
Models of and models for medical practice: education and revolution
The rise and rise of EBM in the UK, as elsewhere, can be seen perhaps most clearly in its gradual entrenchment within the medical curriculum (Demar, Glasziou, & Mayer, 2004; Sinclair, 2004; Straus & Jones, 2004). A study of UK medical schools in 2001 found that most include critical appraisal in the curriculum and examinations for postgraduate training (Alderson, Gliddon & Chalmers, 2003), while a 1998 survey of the UK medical Royal Colleges (which licence clinicians to practice at consultant
Accountability and the moral loading of EBM debates
It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider in detail the broader institutional and social environmental structures and historical circumstances within which EBM has been formulated and propagated. However, lest it appear that I am suggesting that EBM's current institutionalisation within several national health systems can be accounted for solely in medical historical terms, it is important briefly to indicate the political and economic dimensions of the EBM critiques discussed above.
What counts as evidence in EBM?
My original intention in examining critiques of EBM and responses to them was to explore underlying notions of what actually constitutes ‘evidence’ within EBM, beyond the definitions provided by exponents. The quantitative, essentially epidemiological definition of evidence used in EBM was most often identified as problematically restrictive in critiques classified as type 5 in Table 1—failure to consider patient views. For although in evidence-based clinical practice the starting point for
Considering qualitative ‘evidence’: The example of anthropology
Ethnographic and other forms of anthropological research, for example, can plainly produce evidence just as much as the next RCT. The problem lies, rather, in the standards and criteria taken as authoritative in assessing the admissibility and veracity of such evidence. In medical education and practice, EBM reasonably requires the provision of tools for appraising and interpreting evidence and these are currently formulated according to epidemiological criteria. In consequence it would seem
Future trajectories for EBM: Structural influences and contextual dimensions
The main reason for taking seriously whether anthropological and other qualitative material can, by its nature, be admitted into evidence within health research, is to correct, or contest, the composition of the current evidence base. What strikes many social scientists as obviously lacking in descriptions of research evidence as represented within EBM (for example Fig. 2), is a place for—or even acknowledgement of—social structural influences and social, cultural, political and economic
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to participants in the 2003 American Anthropological Association panel on Evidence-Based Practice that provided the initial impetus for this paper and particularly to my discussants, Robert Hahn and Deborah Gordon. I also thank Libby Bogdan-Lovis, George Davey Smith, Elisa Gordon and the Social Science and Medicine manuscript reviewers for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
References (82)
Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: The problem of changing doctors’ behaviour
Social Science & Medicine
(2002)From practice to research: The case for criticism in an age of evidence
Social Science & Medicine
(1998)- et al.
Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care
Social Science & Medicine
(2003) Welcome? To the brave new world of evidence based medicine
Social Science & Medicine
(1995)- et al.
Evidence-based health policy: Context and utilisation
Social Science & Medicine
(2004) - et al.
From best evidence to best practice: Effective implementation of change in patients’ care
The Lancet
(2003) - et al.
The problem of evidence-based medicine: Directions for social science
Social Science & Medicine
(2004) - et al.
The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery
Social Science & Medicine
(2000) Clinical guidelines and the fate of medical autonomy in Ontario
Social Science & Medicine
(1997)- et al.
Expertise in practice: An ethnographic study exploring acquisition and use of knowledge in anaesthesia
British Journal of Anaesthesia
(2003)