Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Toby Lipman.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Delays in the implementation of research findings have been of particular concern during the last decade. New findings, such as the use of warfarin to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, have been found to be implemented patchily in clinical practice, in both primary and secondary care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose [corrected] of the study was to explore how GPs with an active interest in research or evidence-based medicine (EBM) make decisions about anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with GPs about their experiences in managing patients with atrial fibrillation were recorded on audio-tape, transcribed and analysed using the 'Framework' method. A constructivist approach was taken to analysis and interpretation. RESULTS: Eleven interviews were included in the analysis. Two key themes, 'evidence' and 'professional role', were identified. No two respondents had the same perception of the evidence, which was influenced by experience, attitudes and a variable knowledge of the literature. Recent publications about the effectiveness of aspirin compared with warfarin, and the publication Clinical Evidence were the most frequently mentioned sources of evidence. GPs with confidence in EBM skills described giving highly detailed explanations to patients and having a great commitment to shared decision making, even if this resulted in patients declining treatment. For this reason, they also expressed antagonism towards prescriptive clinical guidelines. Hospital doctors were seen as exerting a powerful influence on decisions, as being 'disease-centred', difficult to challenge and poor at communicating. CONCLUSIONS: Decision making about anticoagulation is complex and is determined by a socially constructed view of the evidence strongly influenced by the GP's professional role.
This paper explores some of the issues raised by the finding in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that general practitioners (GPs) taking part failed to use a computerized evidence-based guideline, nor did it have any impact on patient outcomes. GPs are expected to 'make an initial decision on every problem [patients] may present' and to address psychological and social problems in addition to biomedical ones. The computerized guideline imposed an external, largely biomedical, agenda that superseded the patient's. This disrupted the normal pattern of GP consultations and it was therefore ignored. Guidelines for any particular disease are effective if backed up by a detailed programme of education and audit. However, the large number of different conditions seen in general practice means that it is impractical to have such programmes for more than a small fraction of the clinical workload. The reductionist assumptions underlying the construction of evidence-based guidelines from systematic reviews lead to inflexible recommendations on the management of disease. Anthropologists and sociologists make an important distinction between scientifically defined diseases and the culturally constructed experience of illness. Because GPs deal with patients suffering illness that may or may not result from disease, disease-centred guidelines often conflict with their needs and wishes. The development of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was intended as a tool to help doctors make sense of evidence in the context of individual patients' problems. Few GPs are skilled in it, and it has been appropriated by powerful expert groups such as guidelines developers and the pharmaceutical industry. It is suggested that more understanding of EBM by GPs leads to better informed decision making by them and their patients.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patient surveys suggest that fatigue is a common problem in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). The actual extent of the problems caused by fatigue in PBC has yet to be determined as previous studies addressing this question have tended to use selected patient subgroups and subjective or non-quantitative fatigue assessment tools. Here, we have attempted to more accurately assess the extent of fatigue in PBC, and the specificity of the symptom for this disease, by the application of an objective measure of fatigue impact (the fatigue impact score [FIS]) to a geographically based patient cohort, age- and sex-matched normal controls, and chronic liver disease controls. METHODS: Postal completion of the FIS and linked symptom assessment tools. RESULTS: Median FIS was significantly higher in patients (n = 136) than community controls (40 [0-138] vs. 28 [0-156]; P < 0.0001) and chronic liver disease controls (n = 38) (20.5 [0-145]; P < 0.05). Fatigue scores in the 11 patients who had undergone liver transplantation (median 3.5 years previously) were the same as those in non-transplanted patients with advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue is a significant and specific problem in PBC. It is not, however, universal and affects fewer patients than has previously been thought to be the case based on data from selected patient cohorts. This definition of the "normal range" for fatigue in PBC will assist in future studies of etiology and therapy.