Don’t just blame the evidence: considering the role of medical education in the poor uptake of evidence-based medicine in clinical practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 169-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emélie Braschi



Author(s):  
Robyn Bluhm

Both evidence-based medicine (EBM) and biological psychiatry aim to improve clinical practice by basing it more firmly on the results of scientific research. In this chapter, however, I show that the two approaches have very different views on what kinds of research will improve practice. This is because EBM is a form of medical empiricism – it focuses solely on whether treatments work, while biological psychiatry is a form of medical rationalism – it seeks to understand the causes that give rise to observed clinical outcomes. I argue that EBM’s empiricism is ultimately shortsighted and that it should integrate some of the rationalist concerns with pathophysiology. I then use this analysis to draw some lessons for research based on the NIMH’s new Research Domain Criteria.





2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Wilffert ◽  
◽  
Jesse Swen ◽  
Hans Mulder ◽  
Daan Touw ◽  
...  


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Z. Goldenberg ◽  
Erica B. Oberg ◽  
Jane Guiltinan ◽  
Rachelle L. McCarty


2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 277-278
Author(s):  
Frank Holloway

In an era of evidence-based medicine, policy-makers and researchers are preoccupied by the task of ensuring that advances in research are implemented in routine clinical practice. This preoccupation has spawned a small but growing research industry of its own, with the development of resources such as the Cochrane Collaboration database and journals such as Evidence-Based Mental Health. In this paper, I adopt a philosophically quite unfashionable methodology – introspection – to address the question: how has research affected my practice?



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document