PubMed · 1550694
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R E Ferner. 1992. Hazards, risks and reality.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1992.tb04013.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Despite the growing reputation and subject coverage of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, many systematic reviews continue to be published solely in paper-based health care journals. This study was designed to determine why authors choose to publish their systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration and if they might be interested in converting their reviews to Cochrane format for publication in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of Australian primary authors of systematic reviews not published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness. RESULTS: We identified 88 systematic reviews from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness with an Australian as the primary author. We surveyed 52 authors for whom valid contact information was available. The response rate was 88 per cent (46/52). Ten authors replied without completing the survey, leaving 36 valid surveys for analysis. The most frequently cited reasons for not undertaking a Cochrane review were: lack of time (78%), the need to undergo specific Cochrane training (46%), unwillingness to update reviews (36%), difficulties with the Cochrane process (26%) and the review topic already registered with the Cochrane Collaboration (21%). (Percentages based on completed responses to individual questions.) Nearly half the respondents would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Dedicated time emerged as the most important factor in facilitating the potential conversion process. Other factors included navigating the Cochrane system, assistance with updating and financial support. Eighty-six per cent were willing to have their review converted to Cochrane format by another author. CONCLUSION: Time required to complete a Cochrane review and the need for specific training are the primary reasons why some authors publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration. Encouragingly, almost half of the authors would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Based on the current number of reviews in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, this could result in more than 700 additional Cochrane reviews. Ways of supporting these authors and how to provide dedicated time to convert systematic reviews needs further consideration.
The terms used to describe and negotiate environmental quality are both ambiguous and value-laden. Stakeholders intimately and actively involved in the management of forested lands were interviewed and found to use ambiguous, tautological, and value-laden definitions of terms such as health, biodiversity, sustainability, and naturalness. This confusing language hinders public participation efforts and produces calls to regulate and remove discretion from environmental professionals. Our data come from in-depth interviews with environmental management professionals and other stakeholders heavily vested in negotiating the fate of forested lands. We contend that environmental science and management will be more effective if its practitioners embrace and make explicit these ambiguous and evaluative qualities rather than ignore and disguise them.
Healthcare professionals use the genre of case presentation to communicate among themselves the salient patient information during treatment and management. In case presentation, many uncertainties surface, regarding, e.g., the reliability of patient reports, the sensitivity of laboratory tests, and the boundaries of scientific knowledge. The management and portrayal of uncertainty is a critical aspect of professional discourse. This paper documents the rhetorical features of certainty and uncertainty in novice case presentations, considering their pragmatic and problematic implications for students' professional socialization. This study was conducted during the third-year inpatient clerkship at a tertiary care, pediatric hospital in hospital in Canada. Data collection included: (1) non-participant observations of 19 student case presentations involving 11 student and 10 faculty participants, and (2) individual interviews with 11 students and 10 faculty participants. A grounded theory approach informed data collection and analysis. Five thematic categories emerged, two of which this paper considers in detail: "Thinking as a Student" and "Thinking as a Doctor". Within these categories, the management and portrayal of uncertainty was a recurrent issue. Teachers modeled central features of a "professional rhetoric of uncertainty", managing uncertainty of six origins: limits of individual knowledge, limits of evidence, limitless possibility, limits of patient's/parent's account, limits of professional agreement, and limits of scientific knowledge. By contrast, students demonstrated a "novice rhetoric of uncertainty", represented by their focus on responding to personal knowledge deficits through the strategies of acknowledgement, argument, and deflection. Some students moved towards the professional rhetoric of uncertainty, suggesting not only advances in communication, but also shifts in attitude towards patients and colleagues, that were interpreted as indications that this rhetoric shapes professional identity and interactions.