Is evidence-based practice justified?—A philosophical critique

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1111/jep.14059

Henrik Berg PhD

{"title":"Is evidence-based practice justified?—A philosophical critique","authors":"Henrik Berg PhD","doi":"10.1111/jep.14059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence-based practice is the principle governing a range of healthcare practices and beyond. However, it has suffered from a lack of philosophical rigour. This paper sets out to analyse the epistemological basis of evidence-based practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>The paper uses a conceptual analysis. First, it describes the implicit epistemology at work in evidence-based practice. Second, it evaluates the implicit epistemological basis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The analysis indicates that evidence-based practice lacks an explicit epistemological basis. It shows, moreover, that the implicit epistemological basis is untenable.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>There is a need to re-think the epistemological basis for evidence-based practice. Evidence-based practice is out of touch with developments within philosophy of science.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.14059","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14059","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Evidence-based practice is the principle governing a range of healthcare practices and beyond. However, it has suffered from a lack of philosophical rigour. This paper sets out to analyse the epistemological basis of evidence-based practice.

Method

The paper uses a conceptual analysis. First, it describes the implicit epistemology at work in evidence-based practice. Second, it evaluates the implicit epistemological basis.

Results

The analysis indicates that evidence-based practice lacks an explicit epistemological basis. It shows, moreover, that the implicit epistemological basis is untenable.

Conclusion

There is a need to re-think the epistemological basis for evidence-based practice. Evidence-based practice is out of touch with developments within philosophy of science.

查看原文本刊更多论文

循证实践是否合理？

背景：循证实践是指导一系列医疗保健实践及其他实践的原则。然而，循证实践缺乏严谨的哲学基础。本文旨在分析循证实践的认识论基础：本文采用概念分析法。首先，它描述了在循证实践中起作用的隐含认识论。其次，对隐性认识论基础进行评估：分析表明，循证实践缺乏明确的认识论基础。结果：分析表明，循证实践缺乏明确的认识论基础，而且隐含的认识论基础也站不住脚：结论：有必要重新思考循证实践的认识论基础。循证实践与科学哲学的发展脱节。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.