Every problem is embedded in a greater whole.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Joachim P Sturmberg, Mathew Mercuri
{"title":"Every problem is embedded in a greater whole.","authors":"Joachim P Sturmberg, Mathew Mercuri","doi":"10.1111/jep.14139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peter Drucker pointed out an important distinction between 'doing things right' and 'doing the right thing', which recognised that all problems are embedded in a context and thus can only be understood within their unique contextual setting. Contemporary research practices in clinical medicine often regards contextual factors as potential confounders that will bias effect estimates and thus must be avoided. However rigorous, research devoid of context ultimately deprives users of understanding of the support factors that make research transferable to policy decisions or managing care of individual patients-it stands in the way of 'doing the right thing' in 'real life' settings. Appreciating that all problems are embedded in a greater context means that one should not ignore their interconnected and interdependent systemic nature, that is, every variable is simultaneously dependent and independent. This is the reason for the cascading effects and feedback loops witnessed in disease progression and policy efforts. We discuss the need for researchers to a-priori consider the context of their research question as well as the structural relationships of the variables under investigation, which in turn provides the basis for choosing the most appropriate research design. We have a moral imperative to first 'do the right thing'-ask questions that address the contextual needs of our patients, and then to 'do it right'-choose the best research method to answer this contextually framed need. Only then will our research efforts have meaningful and lasting impacts on patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14139","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

Peter Drucker pointed out an important distinction between 'doing things right' and 'doing the right thing', which recognised that all problems are embedded in a context and thus can only be understood within their unique contextual setting. Contemporary research practices in clinical medicine often regards contextual factors as potential confounders that will bias effect estimates and thus must be avoided. However rigorous, research devoid of context ultimately deprives users of understanding of the support factors that make research transferable to policy decisions or managing care of individual patients-it stands in the way of 'doing the right thing' in 'real life' settings. Appreciating that all problems are embedded in a greater context means that one should not ignore their interconnected and interdependent systemic nature, that is, every variable is simultaneously dependent and independent. This is the reason for the cascading effects and feedback loops witnessed in disease progression and policy efforts. We discuss the need for researchers to a-priori consider the context of their research question as well as the structural relationships of the variables under investigation, which in turn provides the basis for choosing the most appropriate research design. We have a moral imperative to first 'do the right thing'-ask questions that address the contextual needs of our patients, and then to 'do it right'-choose the best research method to answer this contextually framed need. Only then will our research efforts have meaningful and lasting impacts on patient care.

每个问题都蕴含在一个更大的整体中。
彼得-德鲁克指出了 "做正确的事 "与 "做正确的事 "之间的重要区别,认为所有问题都有其背景,因此只能在其独特的背景环境中加以理解。当代临床医学研究实践通常将背景因素视为潜在的混杂因素,会对效果估计产生偏差,因此必须避免。无论多么严谨,缺乏背景的研究最终都会使用户无法理解支持性因素,而这些支持性因素可使研究成果转化为政策决策或个体患者的护理管理--它阻碍了在 "现实生活 "环境中 "做正确的事"。认识到所有问题都蕴含在更大的背景中,就意味着我们不应忽视其相互联系和相互依存的系统性,也就是说,每个变量都同时具有依赖性和独立性。这就是在疾病发展和政策制定过程中出现连锁效应和反馈回路的原因。我们讨论了研究人员事先考虑其研究问题的背景以及所研究变量的结构关系的必要性,这反过来又为选择最合适的研究设计提供了基础。我们在道义上有责任首先 "做正确的事"--提出能满足患者背景需求的问题,然后 "做正确的事"--选择最佳的研究方法来满足这种背景需求。只有这样,我们的研究工作才能对患者护理产生有意义的持久影响。
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
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信