Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Critique”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1994

King's theory: a critique of the critiques.

This article describes Imogene M. King's conceptual framework and theory of goal attainment. The critiques of various nursing scholars reflect a misunderstanding of the intent of the theory and conceptual framework. Major areas of concern of the critics include cultural limitations, patient competence, and lack of specific guidelines to work within the nursing process. These critiques are discussed and examples supporting the use of King's work in practice are presented.

Goals↗
PubMed1981

Biofeedback efficacy studies: a critique of critiques.

Biofeedback, a field still in its infancy, has developed treatments that have been used with clinical success in the treatment of a number of disorders. Many have expressed their public concern that biofeedback had not lived up to its early promise and that it has not developed treatments that are, in fact, efficacious. A number of factors, which are inherent in biofeedback research, confound the results of clinical efficacy studies of biofeedback treatments. Researchers interested in the efficacy of biofeedback must address several issue: (1) Rejecting the null hypothesis is not equal to proving the null hypothesis (without the use of power analysis); (2) control for nonspecific effects is not equal to a double-blind experimental design; (3) ignorance of a mechanism of action is not equal to a lack of clinical efficacy; (4) the administration of training is not equal to the subject's learning to criterion; (5) untrained therapists are not equal to trained therapists; (6) statistical significance is not equal to clinical significance; and (7) the laboratory setting is not equal to the clinical setting.

Biofeedback, Psychology↗
PubMed1992

The method of 'principlism': a critique of the critique.

Several scholars have recently criticized the dominant emphasis upon mid-level principles in bioethics best exemplified by Beauchamp and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics. In Part I of this essay, I assess the fairness and cogency of three broad criticisms raised against 'principlism' as an approach: (1) that principlism, as an exercise in applied ethics, is insufficiently attentive to the dialectical relations between ethical theory and mortal practice; (2) that principlism fails to offer a systematic account of the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice; and (3) that principlism, as a version of moral pluralism, is fatally flawed by its theoretical agnosticism. While acknowledging that Beauchamp and Childress's reliance upon Ross's version of intuitionism is problematic, I conclude that the critics of principlism have failed to make a compelling case against its theoretical or practical adequacy as an ethical approach. In Part II, I assess the moral theory developed by Bernard Gert in Mortality: A New Justification of the Moral Rules, because Gert has recommended his approach as a systematic alternative to principlism. I judge Gert's theory to be seriously incomplete and, in contrast to principlism, unable to generate coherent conclusions about cases of active euthanasia and paternalism.

Beneficence↗
PubMed1991

A model for critiquing based on automated medical records.

We describe the design of a critiquing system, HyperCritic, that relies on automated medical records for its data input. The purpose of the system is to advise general practitioners who are treating patients who have hypertension. HyperCritic has access to the data stored in a primary-care information system that supports a fully automated medical record. Hyper-Critic relies on data in the automated medical record to critique the management of hypertensive patients, avoiding a consultation-style interaction with the user. The first step in the critiquing process involves the interpretation of the medical record in an attempt to discover the physician's actions and decisions. After detecting the relevant events in the medical record, HyperCritic views the task of critiquing as the assignment of critiquing statements to these patient-specific events. Critiquing statements are defined as recommendations involving one or more suggestions for possible modifications in the actions of the physician. The core of the model underlying HyperCritic is that the process of generating the critiquing statements is viewed as the application of a limited set of abstract critiquing tasks. We distinguish four categories of critiquing tasks: preparation tasks, selection tasks, monitoring tasks, and responding tasks. The execution of these critiquing tasks requires specific medical factual knowledge. This factual knowledge is separated from the critiquing tasks and is stored in a medical fact base. The principal advantage demonstrated by HyperCritic is the adaption of a domain-independent critiquing structure. We show how this domain-independent critiquing structure can be used to facilitate knowledge acquisition and maintenance of the system.

Artificial Intelligence↗
PubMed1993

Response of general practitioners to computer-generated critiques of hypertension therapy.

We recently have shown that a computer system, known as HyperCritic, can successfully audit general practitioners' treatment of hypertension by analyzing computer-based patient records. HyperCritic reviews the electronic medical records and offers unsolicited advice. To determine which unsolicited advice might be perceived as inappropriate, builders of programs such as HyperCritic need insight into providers' responses to computer-generated critique of their patient care. Twenty medical charts, describing in total 243 visits of patients with hypertension, were audited by 8 human reviewers and by the critiquing-system HyperCritic. A panel of 14 general practitioners subsequently judged the relevance of those critiques on a five-point scale ranging from relevant critique to erroneous or harmful critique. The panel judged reviewers' comments to be either relevant or somewhat relevant in 61 to 68% of cases, and either erroneous or possibly erroneous in 15 to 18%; the panel judged HyperCritic's comments to be either relevant or somewhat relevant in 65% of cases, and either erroneous or possibly erroneous in 16%. Comparison of individual members of the panel showed large differences; for example, the portion of HyperCritic's comments judged relevant ranged from 0 to 82%. We conclude that, from the perspective of general practitioners, critiques generated by the critiquing system HyperCritic are perceived equally beneficial as critiques generated by human reviewers. Different general practitioners, however, judge the critiques differently. Before auditing systems based on computer-based patient records that are acceptable to practitioners can be introduced, additional studies are needed to evaluate the reasons a physician may have for judging critiques to be irrelevant, and to evaluate the effect of critiques on physician behavior.

Artificial Intelligence↗