scholarly journals Dari Penelitian Ke Praktek Kedokteran

Sari Pediatri ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Dody Firmanda
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Governance ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Organizational Cultures ◽  
Clinical Leadership ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Salah satu komponen latar belakang dari tujuan dilakukannya suatu penelitian adalah relevansi penelitian tersebut terhadap kemajuan ilmu pengetahuan, membuat kebijakan (policy) klinis dalam penatalaksanaan pasien secara individu ataupun kelompok serta kebijakan kesehatan secara lebih luas dalam suatu sistem tingkat institusi penyelenggara kesehatan baik tingkat rumah sakit (standard of procedures) maupun nasional (guidelines). Pada abad 21 ini dengan semakin meningkatnya tekanan dan tuntutan, pesatnya perkembangan teknologi kedokteran/kesehatan dan semakin terbatasnya sumber dana serta perubahan globalisasi, diharapkan pengambilan keputusan yang tepat dan baik akan bergeser ke arah ‘Evidence-based decision making’. “Evidence-based Medicine (EBM)” dan “Evidence-based Health Care (EBHC)” adalah cara pendekatan untuk mengambil keputusan dalam penatalaksanaan pasien (dan atau penyelenggaraan pelayanan kesehatan) secara eksplisit dan sistematis berdasarkan bukti penelitian terakhir yang sahih (valid) dan bermanfaat. Penerapan “Evidence-based Medicine (EBM)” dan “Clinical Governance” dalam suatu sistem organisasi pelayanan kesehatan memerlukan beberapa persyaratan yakni organisastion-wide transformation, clinical leadership dan positive organizational cultures. 

Evidence-Based Decision-Making (Part 1): Origins and Evolution in the Health Sciences

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Bradt
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

AbstractEvidence is defined as data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based. In the early 1990s, medical clinicians pioneered evidence-based decision-making. The discipline emerged as the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine required the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available, external clinical evidence from systematic research and the patient's unique values and circumstances. In this context, evidence acquired a hierarchy of strength based upon the method of data acquisition.Subsequently, evidence-based decision-making expanded throughout the allied health field. In public health, and particularly for populations in crisis, three major data-gathering tools now dominate: (1) rapid health assessments; (2) population based surveys; and (3) disease surveillance. Unfortunately, the strength of evidence obtained by these tools is not easily measured by the grading scales of evidence-based medicine. This is complicated by the many purposes for which evidence can be applied in public health—strategic decision-making, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Different applications have different requirements for strength of evidence as well as different time frames for decision-making. Given the challenges of integrating data from multiple sources that are collected by different methods, public health experts have defined best available evidence as the use of all available sources used to provide relevant inputs for decision-making.

scholarly journals Impact of deliberate practice on evidence-based medicine attitudes and behaviours of health care professionals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eelco Draaisma ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio ◽  
Jolita Bekhof ◽  
A. Debbie C. Jaarsma ◽  
Paul L. P. Brand
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Deliberate Practice ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Teaching Activities ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Introduction Although evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching activities may improve short-term EBM knowledge and skills, they have little long-term impact on learners’ EBM attitudes and behaviour. This study examined the effects of learning EBM through stand-alone workshops or various forms of deliberate EBM practice. Methods We assessed EBM attitudes and behaviour with the evidence based practice inventory questionnaire, in paediatric health care professionals who had only participated in a stand-alone EBM workshop (controls), participants with a completed PhD in clinical research (PhDs), those who had completed part of their paediatric residency at a department (Isala Hospital) which systematically implemented EBM in its clinical and teaching activities (former Isala residents), and a reference group of paediatric professionals currently employed at Isala’s paediatric department (current Isala participants). Results Compared to controls (n = 16), current Isala participants (n = 13) reported more positive EBM attitudes (p < 0.01), gave more priority to using EBM in decision making (p = 0.001) and reported more EBM behaviour (p = 0.007). PhDs (n = 20) gave more priority to using EBM in medical decision making (p < 0.001) and reported more EBM behaviour than controls (p = 0.016). Discussion Health care professionals exposed to deliberate practice of EBM, either in the daily routines of their department or by completing a PhD in clinical research, view EBM as more useful and are more likely to use it in decision making than their peers who only followed a standard EBM workshop. These findings support the use of deliberate practice as the basis for postgraduate EBM educational activities.

The ‘Number Needed to Treat’ and the ‘Adjusted NNT’ in Health Care Decision-Making

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Dowie
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Based Medicine

Within ‘evidence-based medicine and health care’ the ‘number needed to treat’ (NNT) has been promoted as the most clinically useful measure of the effectiveness of interventions as established by research. Is the NNT, in either its simple or adjusted form, ‘easily understood’, ‘intuitively meaningful’, ‘clinically useful’ and likely to bring about the substantial improvements in patient care and public health envisaged by those who recommend its use? The key evidence against the NNT is the consistent format effect revealed in studies that present respondents with mathematically-equivalent statements regarding trial results. Problems of understanding aside, trying to overcome the limitations of the simple (major adverse event) NNT by adding an equivalent measure for harm (‘number needed to harm’ NNH) means the NNT loses its key claim to be a single yardstick. Integration of the NNT and NNH, and attempts to take into account the wider consequences of treatment options, can be attempted by either a ‘clinical judgement’ or an analytical route. The former means abandoning the explicit and rigorous transparency urged in evidence-based medicine. The attempt to produce an ‘adjusted’ NNT by an analytical approach has succeeded, but the procedure involves carrying out a prior decision analysis. The calculation of an adjusted NNT from that analysis is a redundant extra step, the only action necessary being comparison of the results for each option and determination of the optimal one. The adjusted NNT has no role in clinical decision-making, defined as requiring patient utilities, because the latter are measurable only on an interval scale and cannot be transformed into a ratio measure (which the adjusted NNT is implied to be). In any case, the NNT always represents the intrusion of population-based reasoning into clinical decision-making.

Evidence-Based Medicine, Best Practices, Transductive Models, and Naturalistic Decision Making: Commentary on Paul R. Falzer, Naturalistic Decision Making and the Practice of Health Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Brian Haynes
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Naturalistic Decision Making ◽  
Based Medicine

Expert and informed decision making is an essential process in all of health care. Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) purports to support and enhance this process by the timely infusion of high-quality, pertinent evidence from health research, tailored as closely as possible to the individual and their health problem. Doing so is not an easy task for many reasons, beginning with imperfections and incompleteness in the evidence and ending with the complexities of the dual decision making required by individuals and their care providers. EBM needs a lot of help supporting decision-making processes and welcomes further interdisciplinary collaboration. The “conformist principle,” “best practice regimens,” and “transductive models” should not be considered as barriers to such collaboration: These are not part of EBM. Rather, EBM has always seen evidence from health research as but one of many inputs to decision making by providers and patients. An overarching problem for collaboration to address is understanding the decision-making process well enough to develop effective means to bolster it, so that people are consistently offered the current best options for their problems in a way that fits their circumstances and that they can understand and judge.

EBM: Rationalist Fever Dreams

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devorah Klein ◽  
David Woods ◽  
Gary Klein ◽  
Shawna Perry
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Naturalistic Decision Making ◽  
The Face ◽  
Based Medicine

In 2016, we examined the connection between naturalistic decision making and the trend toward best practice compliance; we used evidence-based medicine (EBM) in health care as an exemplar. Paul Falzer’s lead paper in this issue describes the historical underpinnings of how and why EBM came into vogue in health care. Falzer also highlights the epistemological rationale for EBM. Falzer’s article, like our own, questions the rationale of EBM and reflects on ways that naturalistic decision making can support expertise in the face of attempts to standardize practice and emphasize compliance. Our objectives in this commentary are first to explain the inherent limits of procedural approaches and second to examine ways to help decision makers become more adaptive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document