PubMed · 15573674
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Janice Jones. 2004. Evidenced-based practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15573674/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The Millennium Development Goals set ambitious targets for women's health, including reductions in maternal and child mortality and combating the spread of HIV/AIDS. The law, which historically has often obstructed women's access to the health care they require, has a dynamic potential to ensure women's access that is being progressively realized. This paper identifies three legal principles that are key to advancing women's reproductive and sexual health. First, law should require that care be evidence-based, reflecting medical and social science rather than, for instance, religious ideology or morality. Second, legal guidance should be clear and transparent, so that service providers and patients know their responsibilities and entitlements without litigation to resolve uncertainties. Third, law should provide applicable measures to ensure fairness in women's access to services, both general services and those only women require. Legal developments are addressed that illustrate how law can advance women's equality, and social justice.
BACKGROUND: The reasoning behind evaluating medical interventions is that a hierarchy of methods exists which successively produce improved and therefore more rigorous evidence based medicine upon which to make clinical decisions. At the foundation of this hierarchy are case studies, retrospective and prospective case series, followed by cohort studies with historical and concomitant non-randomized controls. Open-label randomized controlled studies (RCTs), and finally blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs, which offer most internal validity are considered the most reliable evidence. Rigorous RCTs remove bias. Evidence from RCTs forms the basis of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. This hierarchy, founded on a pharmacological model of therapy, is generalized to other interventions which may be complex and non-pharmacological (healing, acupuncture and surgery). DISCUSSION: The hierarchical model is valid for limited questions of efficacy, for instance for regulatory purposes and newly devised products and pharmacological preparations. It is inadequate for the evaluation of complex interventions such as physiotherapy, surgery and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This has to do with the essential tension between internal validity (rigor and the removal of bias) and external validity (generalizability). SUMMARY: Instead of an Evidence Hierarchy, we propose a Circular Model. This would imply a multiplicity of methods, using different designs, counterbalancing their individual strengths and weaknesses to arrive at pragmatic but equally rigorous evidence which would provide significant assistance in clinical and health systems innovation. Such evidence would better inform national health care technology assessment agencies and promote evidence based health reform.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.