Skip to main content
Tag

science

Oct 24 2018

Whither Cochrane, for e-patients and everyone else?

By healthcare industry

Image from Twitter user @Rasha_Fadlallah This will be the third, and last, in my short series on attending the Cochrane Colloquium in Edinburgh in September of this year. In the first post, I talked about what that conference was like; in the second, I shared an overview of Cochrane as a global movement to make medical evidence work better for clinicians, patients, and communities around the world. This last one will talk about some of the issues Cochrane is facing, as an organization and as a proponent of science in a world that seems to have a rising suspicion of science and research. I watched the Cochrane Colloquium open not just with a welcome to Edinburgh – although there was that, in spades – but with a behind-the-scenes PR flame war that wound up sucking up the the headline space for Cochrane that week, and in the weeks since. I talked about it in my podcast the following week, and have watched the conversation go by since my first day on the ground at the Edinburgh International Convention Center. The short-snort version of what happened is this: On September 14, the Friday before the Cochrane Colloquium was to kick off (on Sunday the 16th), a letter went up on the Cochrane Nordic Center site’s News page from Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, wherein he announced that he had been expelled from the Cochrane governing board by a slim majority vote by that board. He cast it as a moral crisis, caused by Cochrane’s too-chummy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. That letter has since disappeared from the Cochrane Nordic pages, the link is to a PDF on the Mad In America site. Cochrane itself stayed silent for 24 hours, putting up its response to Gøtzsche’s letter late on Saturday, referencing only an independent review of “complaints related to…

Read More
Apr 03 2017

Democratization of knowledge, healthcare edition

By e-patients, healthcare industry, technology

I was lucky enough to be asked to write the foreword to the 3rd edition of Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice, from Oxford University Press. Here’s the text of that forward. We are at what appears to be a Copernican moment in healthcare, where everything that learned minds thought was true – that the sun revolved around the earth; that miasmas rising from the ground, or humours contained within the human body, caused disease; that only magical beings called doctors could understand or participate in medical care – is being disproved. Medicine stands at a crossroads unlike any other transformation point in its history. As access to information – what I call the democratization of knowledge – has become as simple as the movement of a human finger, the relationship between doctors and the people they care for has undergone a seismic shift. But like many seismic shifts, it’s happening at a level that only those tuned to pick up the signals from it can sense. That I, a patient voice whose only medical knowledge has been acquired as an autodidact with strong research skills, have been asked to write the foreword to the third edition of Shared Decision Making in Health Care is a strong indication that the earth is moving beneath our feet. The knowledge exchange that is the bedrock of shared decision making is creating the mutuality that has been missing in medicine, making a full partnership between doctors and the people they care for finally possible. As is made clear in many parts of this book, building literacy on both sides of the equation is a must for shared decisions – information has to be shared with people in ways they can understand, which makes solid communication skills a must for both patients and…

Read More
Jun 23 2013

Stetho-Snopes: Time for some rigorous myth-busting in healthcare?

By healthcare industry, politics, technology

It was recently revealed that an Excel error contributed to the European fiscal crisis, and a continuing global economic recession/depression. Paul Krugman called the revelation the Excel Depression in the NY Times.  Certainly lives are at stake when the success or failure of large economies are at risk, but not nearly as many lives as are at stake every day given the lack of transparency (and even, in some cases, plain truth) in bioscience research and medical outcomes reporting. Ben Goldacre gave a barn-burning TED talk, “Battling Bad Science,” in 2011. He gave another one in 2012 in which he called the data manipulation in scientific research the “cancer at the core of evidence-based medicine.” His point? We cannot make a meaningful decision in the absence of ALL the data. Tim Berners-Lee, the man who invented the actually-useful-to-humans WWW part of the Internet, has consistently called for raw data – ALL the raw data – NOW. Paul Levy, the former CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, recently blogged about the failure of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery to reveal, in a report on a surgery for sunken-chest deformity, a widely-reported death of a teenage boy after said surgery, even though that boy’s case is used as an example of avoidable medical error in safety bootcamps for medical interns and residents. Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? Even if the data is fully reported, the PR geeks who write up the announcement of results might get that report 100% wrong. Witness the recent contretemps over a University of Chicago study on patient engagement, shared decision-making, and healthcare cost control. A full outline of that mess, by ePatient Dave deBronkart in Forbes, will give you 411 on that story. The Cliff’s Notes: it was a post-discharge survey, not a full study; it measured attitudes, not outcomes; and the press release was sent out on…

Read More
Close Menu