Epistemological deliberation: the challenges of producing evidence-based guidelines on lifestyle habits

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
H. Lagerlöf, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, M. Sager
{"title":"Epistemological deliberation: the challenges of producing evidence-based guidelines on lifestyle habits","authors":"H. Lagerlöf, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, M. Sager","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16149619907286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Promotion of healthy behaviour is increasingly highlighted worldwide as a way to improve public health, prevent disease incidence, and decrease long-term costs for healthcare. In Sweden the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) used the well-established format of national guidelines to facilitate a more widespread use of approaches for promotion of healthy lifestyle habits in healthcare.Aims and objectives: The aim of this case study was to explore the tensions between public health knowledge and the tenets of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the creation of national guidelines on lifestyle habits.Methods: Based on data from interviews with guideline professionals and the collected documents of the national guidelines, we examine how NBHW negotiated the conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines. An analytical model based on approaches from the sociology of standardisation is used to explore the ramifications of these negotiations.Findings: In line with findings in the sociology of standardisation, we show how conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines result in both having to yield on certain points. This, we claim, results in compromise, but perhaps also compromised notions of validity and causality.Discussion and conclusion: This case offers important learning about the general compatibility of public health and currently dominant methods of EBM. Important crossroads are outlined, concerning how validity and causality are configured in public health guidelines and how these require extensive epistemological deliberation.Key messagesEpistemological commitments on validity and causality within public health have been compromised to fit the format of national guidelines;Similarly, the format of national guidelines has been subordinated to the public health valuation of risk assessments;Integrating public health into an EBM format requires extensive epistemological deliberation.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149619907286","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Promotion of healthy behaviour is increasingly highlighted worldwide as a way to improve public health, prevent disease incidence, and decrease long-term costs for healthcare. In Sweden the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) used the well-established format of national guidelines to facilitate a more widespread use of approaches for promotion of healthy lifestyle habits in healthcare.Aims and objectives: The aim of this case study was to explore the tensions between public health knowledge and the tenets of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the creation of national guidelines on lifestyle habits.Methods: Based on data from interviews with guideline professionals and the collected documents of the national guidelines, we examine how NBHW negotiated the conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines. An analytical model based on approaches from the sociology of standardisation is used to explore the ramifications of these negotiations.Findings: In line with findings in the sociology of standardisation, we show how conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines result in both having to yield on certain points. This, we claim, results in compromise, but perhaps also compromised notions of validity and causality.Discussion and conclusion: This case offers important learning about the general compatibility of public health and currently dominant methods of EBM. Important crossroads are outlined, concerning how validity and causality are configured in public health guidelines and how these require extensive epistemological deliberation.Key messagesEpistemological commitments on validity and causality within public health have been compromised to fit the format of national guidelines;Similarly, the format of national guidelines has been subordinated to the public health valuation of risk assessments;Integrating public health into an EBM format requires extensive epistemological deliberation.
认识论审议:生产基于证据的生活习惯指南的挑战
背景:作为改善公共卫生、预防疾病发病率和降低医疗保健长期成本的一种方式,促进健康行为在世界范围内日益受到重视。在瑞典,国家卫生和福利委员会(NBHW)采用了公认的国家准则格式,以促进在卫生保健领域更广泛地采用促进健康生活习惯的方法。目的和目标:本案例研究的目的是探讨公共卫生知识与循证医学(EBM)原则在制定国家生活习惯指南方面的紧张关系。方法:基于对指南专业人员的访谈数据和收集的国家指南文件,我们研究了NBHW如何处理公共卫生知识与国家指南格式之间的冲突。一个基于标准化社会学方法的分析模型被用来探索这些谈判的后果。研究结果:与标准化社会学的研究结果一致,我们展示了公共卫生知识与国家指南格式之间的冲突如何导致两者在某些点上不得不让步。我们声称,这导致了妥协,但也许也妥协了有效性和因果关系的概念。讨论与结论:本案例提供了关于公共卫生和目前主要循证医学方法的一般兼容性的重要学习。概述了重要的十字路口,涉及如何在公共卫生指南中配置有效性和因果关系,以及这些如何需要广泛的认识论审议。关键信息公共卫生领域关于有效性和因果关系的认识论承诺已被妥协,以适应国家指南的格式;同样,国家指南的格式已从属于风险评估的公共卫生评估;将公共卫生纳入循证医学格式需要广泛的认识论审议。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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