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: 2.73). 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 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The Swedish government has increasingly begun to rely on so called informative governance when regulating healthcare. The question this article sets out to answer is: considered to be ¿the backbone¿ of the Swedish state¿s strategy for informative governance in healthcare, what kind of regulatory arrangement is the evidence-based National Guidelines? Together with national medical registries and an extensive system of quality and efficiency indicators, the National Guidelines constitutes Sweden¿s quality management system.MethodsA framework for evaluating and comparing regulatory arrangements was used. It asks for instance: what is the purpose of the regulation and are regulation methods oriented towards deterrence or compliance?ResultsThe Swedish National Guidelines is a regulatory arrangement intended to govern the prioritizations of all decision makers ¿ politicians and administrators in the self-governing county councils as well as healthcare professionals ¿ through a compliance model backed up by top-down benchmarking and built-in mechanisms for monitoring. It is thus an instrument for the central state to steer local political authorities. The purpose is to achieve equitable and cost-effective healthcare.Conclusions This article suggests that the use of evidence-based guidelines in Swedish healthcare should be seen in the light of Sweden¿s constitutional setting, with several autonomous levels of political authority negotiating the scope for their decision-making power. As decision-making capacity is relocated to the central government ¿ from the democratically elected county councils responsible for financing and provision of healthcare ¿ the Swedish National Guidelines is part of an ongoing process of healthcare recentralization in Sweden, reducing the scope for local decision-making. This represents a new aspect of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).
    BMC Health Services Research 11/2014; 14(1):509. · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), which advocates clinical decisions are based on evidence from medical research, has become an important ideal pursued in contemporary medicine. EBM relies on two key principles: the evidence hierarchy and clinical practice guidelines. Both principles have been fiercely criticized, and critics often invoke the term ‘Cookbook medicine’ to stress the dangers and limitations of EBM. This article reviews diverse critical literature on EBM by drawing on the newly proposed subfield of “Sociology of Standards.” It reframes the manifold critiques on EBM as concerns over the harm that standardization can bring about and demonstrates how empirical sociological studies have contributed to a better understanding of EBM's justificatory basis and regulatory impact. First, it discusses the ‘politics of Evidence’ inherent in EBM's epistemological basis, secondly, explores the actual ‘evidence-base’ of its tools in practice, and third, addresses sociological debates on EBM's regulatory impact. In the concluding section, I argue that a ‘Sociology of Standards’ opens up new research avenues by allowing scholars to challenge – or at least empirically investigate – a host of dichotomies. By doing so, the role of the patient in EBM can be reframed to allow for more productive empirical investigations.
    Sociology Compass 01/2014; 8(6):823–836.
  • Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 10/2011; 104(10):395-400. · 1.72 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014