The problem of evidence-based medicine: directions for social science

Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Centre for Clinical Research, Dalhousie University, 4th Floor-5790 University Ave. Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 1V7.
Social Science [?] Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.56). 10/2004; 59(5):1059-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.12.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is arguably the most important contemporary initiative committed to reshaping biomedical reason and practice. The move to establish scientific research as a fundamental ground of medical decision making has met with an enthusiastic reception within academic medicine, but has also generated considerable controversy. EBM and the broader forms of evidence-based decision making it has occasioned raise provocative questions about the relation of scientific knowledge to social action across a variety of domains. Social science inquiry about EBM has not yet reached the scale one might expect, given the breadth and significance of the phenomenon. This paper contributes reflections, critique and analysis aimed at helping to build a more robust social science investigation of EBM. The paper begins with a "diagnostics" of the existing social science literature on EBM, emphasizing the possibilities and limitations of its two central organizing analytic perspectives: political economy and humanism. We further explore emerging trends in the literature including a turn to original empirical investigation and the embrace of "newer" theoretical resources such as postmodern critique. We argue for the need to move the social inquiry of EBM beyond concerns about rationalization and the potential erasure of the patient and, to this end, suggest new avenues of exploration. The latter include analysis of clinical epidemiology and clinical reason as the discursive preconditions of EBM, the role of the patient as a site for the production of evidence, and the textually mediated character of EBM.

1 Follower
  • Futures 07/2013; 51:50-58. DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2013.06.003 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show description] [Hide description]
    DESCRIPTION: This PhD explored the jointly produced discursive activities involved in the decision-making within the medical consultation between the patient and the GP. No evidence was found to support current models of sharing decisions. Three key themes were identified 1) First person pronoun use of 'we' by doctors was rhetorically persuasive and helped to disguise coercion. When used by patients the use of 'we' helped to foster patient involvement. ii) Patients requests were successful through the use of discursive techniques such as directly asking for things and unsuccessful requesting tended to be vague and less demanding. iii) Evidence was not presented to patients disinterestedly. Risk-talk was seen to attend to the medical agenda and risks were often minimised.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The primary objective of this paper was to balance the conversation about evidence-based practices in the treatment of traumatized children by making it more arts inclusive. We overview some of the theoretical and empirical knowledge about how the arts have unique capacities to address the complex needs of traumatized children. Our goal was to outline how the arts may uniquely address the sequelae of childhood trauma and to encourage their use as both an enhancement to evidence based practices and, as stand alone interventions.We will describe how the arts uniquely address the complex sequelae of childhood trauma and emphasize their far-reaching accessibility to all children requiring care.
    Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 01/2015; 8(1):21-31. DOI:10.1007/s40653-015-0036-1

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014