Griffiths, Frances, Green, Eillen and Tsouroufli, Maria. (2005) The nature of medical evidence and its inherent uncertainty for the clinical consultation : qualitative study. BMJ, Vol.330 ( ). pp. 511-515. ISSN 0959-535X

Preview

PDF WRAP_Griffiths_BMJ_for_archive.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (147Kb)

Abstract

Objective To describe how clinicians deal with the uncertainty inherent in medical evidence in clinical consultations. Design Qualitative study. Setting Clinical consultations related to hormone replacement therapy, bone densitometry, and breast screening in seven general practices and three secondary care clinics in the UK NHS. Participants Women aged 45-64. Results 45 of the 109 relevant consultations included sufficient discussion for analysis. The consultations could be categorised into three groups: focus on certainty for now and this test, with slippage into general reassurance; a coherent account of the medical evidence for risks and benefits, but blurring of the uncertainty inherent in the evidence and giving an impression of certainty; and acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of the medical evidence and negotiating a provisional decision. Conclusion Strategies health professionals use to cope with the uncertainty inherent in medical evidence in clinical consultations include the use of provisional decisions that allow for changing priorities and circumstances over time, to avoid slippage into general reassurance from a particular test result, and to avoid the creation of a myth of certainty.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Clinical competence, Physician and patient, Uncertainty
Journal or Publication Title:	BMJ
Publisher:	BMJ Group
ISSN:	0959-535X
Date:	31 January 2005
Volume:	Vol.330
Number:
Page Range:	pp. 511-515
Identification Number:	10.1136/bmj.38336.482720.8F
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Economic and Social Research Council (Great Britain) (ESRC)
Grant number:	L218252038
References:	1. Fox RC. Medical Uncertainty Revisited. Bendelow G, Carpenter M, Vautier C, Williams S, Editor. Gender, Health and Healing: The public / private divide. London: Routledge, 2002: 236-53. 2. Willis J. The Paradox of Progress. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1995. 3. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women. JAMA 2002; 288:321-33. 4. Rosenberger NR. The Process of Discourse: Usages of a Japanese Medical Term. Social Science & Medicine 1992; 34(3):237-47. 5. McWhinney IR. An Acquaintance with Particulars... Family Medicine 1989; 21(4):296-8. 6. Gorovitz S, MacIntyre A. Toward a Theory of Medical Fallibility. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1976; 1:51-71. 7. Beresford E. Uncertainty and the shaping of medical decisions. Hastings Centre Report 1991; 21:6-11. 8. Tanenbaum S. What physicians know. The New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329:1268-71. 9. Tanenbaum S. Evidence and expertise: the challenge of the coutcomes movement to medical professionalism. Academic Medicine 1999; 74:757-63. 10. Tanenbaum SJ. Knowing and Acting in Medical Practice: The Epistemological Politics of Outcomes Research. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1994; 19:27-44. 11. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Physicians' and patients' choices in evidence based practice. British Medical Journal 2002; 324:1350. 12. Summerskill, William SM, Pope C. "I saw the panic rise in her eyes and evidence-based medicine went out of the door." An exploratory qualitative study of the barriers to secondary prevention in the management of coronary heart disease. Family Practice 2002; 19:6:605-8. 13. Lewis D, Robinson J, Wilkinson E. Factors involved in deciding to start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinicians' and lay people's attitudes. British Medical Journal 2003; 327:841-7. 14. Green E, Thompson D, Griffiths FE. Narratives of Risk: women at midlife, medical "experts" and health technologies. Health Risk and Society 2002; 4:243-86. 15. Griffiths FE, Green EE, Bendelow G, Backett-Milburn K. Innovative Health Technologies at Women's Midlife; Theory and Diversity among women and Experts (L218252038). ESRC, 2003. 16. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks; turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. British Medical Journal 2002; 324:827-30. 17. Minelli CAK, Sutton A, Cooper N. Benefits and harms associated with hormone replacement therapy: clinical decision analysis. BMJ 2004; 328. 18. Griffiths F., Green E. A normal biological process? Brittle bones, HRT and the patient-doctor encounter. Williams S.J., Birke L., Bendelow G.A., editors. Debating Biology: Sociological reflections on health medicine and society. London: Routledge, 2003: 210-22. 19. Massé R, Légaré F. The limitations of a negotiation model for perimenopausal women. Sociology of Health and Illness 2001; 23(1):44-64. 20. Bond M, Bywaters P. Working it out for ourselves: women learning about hormone replacement therapy. Women's Studies International Forum 1998; 21(1):65-76. 21. WONCA Europe. The European Definition of General Practice/Family Medicine [Web Page]. 2002; Available at http://www.euract.org/pap041.html. (Accessed 12 July 2004).
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/265

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item