PubMed · 15877914
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
John Garrow. 2005. A two-box option.. https://doi.org/10.1079/phn2005718
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
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.
Evidence-based disease prevention practice guidelines can provide a rationale for health programming decisions, which should, in turn, lead to improved public health outcomes. This logic has stimulated the creation of a growing number of evidence-based prevention practice guidelines, including the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Few systematic efforts have been made to document the degree of adoption and implementation of these approaches, although the evidence on translation of research into practice in other health fields indicates that the adoption and implementation rate is low. Drawing on the marketing literature, we suggest three approaches to enhance the adoption and implementation of evidence-based approaches: 1) conducting consumer research with prospective adopters to identify their perspectives on how evidence-based prevention programs can advance their organization's mission, 2) building sustainable distribution channels to promote and deliver evidence-based programs to prospective adopters, and 3) improving access to easily implemented programs that are consistent with evidence-based guidelines. Newly emerging paradigms of prevention research (e.g., RE-AIM) that are more attuned to the needs of the marketplace will likely yield a new generation of evidence-based preventive approaches that can be more effectively disseminated. We suggest that the public health community prioritize the dissemination of evidence-based prevention approaches, because doing so is a potent environmental change strategy for enhancing health.