癌症服务中的伪科学;英格兰国民健康服务信托基金调查

Leslie Rose
{"title":"癌症服务中的伪科学;英格兰国民健康服务信托基金调查","authors":"Leslie Rose","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.26.24309516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientifically implausible treatments are offered by some hospital cancer departments. Examples are reiki, aromatherapy, and reflexology. Salaried practitioners are employed to deliver these therapies, which are provided as palliative care, although they lack evidence of effectiveness. Such practices seem to conflict with efforts to make health care evidence based.\nThe aim of this survey was to estimate the extent of certain pseudoscientific practices in cancer care departments in NHS hospitals in England, and to evaluate the rationale for such provision.\nRelevant documents were requested from NHS Trusts under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Main outcome measures were: number of trusts offering pseudoscientific practices in cancer departments, time to full FOIA response, presence and content of practice governance documents, and presence and quality of evidence for practices.\n13.6% of eligible NHS trusts were offering pseudoscientific clinical practices. No trust provided a valid business case, or any robust evidence for the practices. The governance documents included claims about chakras, meridians, and invisible energy. Ten trusts required that informed consent be obtained from patients. This could not have been obtained because information given was misleading.\nConclusions\nPseudoscientific practices are embedded in the NHS in England, and governance documents show poor understanding of clinical evidence.","PeriodicalId":501412,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pseudoscience in Cancer Services; a survey of National Health Service Trusts in England\",\"authors\":\"Leslie Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.06.26.24309516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientifically implausible treatments are offered by some hospital cancer departments. Examples are reiki, aromatherapy, and reflexology. Salaried practitioners are employed to deliver these therapies, which are provided as palliative care, although they lack evidence of effectiveness. Such practices seem to conflict with efforts to make health care evidence based.\\nThe aim of this survey was to estimate the extent of certain pseudoscientific practices in cancer care departments in NHS hospitals in England, and to evaluate the rationale for such provision.\\nRelevant documents were requested from NHS Trusts under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Main outcome measures were: number of trusts offering pseudoscientific practices in cancer departments, time to full FOIA response, presence and content of practice governance documents, and presence and quality of evidence for practices.\\n13.6% of eligible NHS trusts were offering pseudoscientific clinical practices. No trust provided a valid business case, or any robust evidence for the practices. The governance documents included claims about chakras, meridians, and invisible energy. Ten trusts required that informed consent be obtained from patients. This could not have been obtained because information given was misleading.\\nConclusions\\nPseudoscientific practices are embedded in the NHS in England, and governance documents show poor understanding of clinical evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.26.24309516\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.26.24309516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一些医院的癌症科会提供一些科学上难以置信的治疗方法。例如灵气疗法、芳香疗法和反射疗法。这些疗法是作为姑息治疗提供的,尽管缺乏有效性的证据。这项调查的目的是估算英格兰国家医疗服务系统(NHS)医院癌症护理部门中某些伪科学做法的程度,并评估提供此类服务的理由。根据《2000 年信息自由法》(FOIA),我们向国家医疗服务系统信托机构索取了相关文件。主要结果指标包括:在癌症科室提供伪科学诊疗方法的信托机构数量、对《信息自由法案》做出全面回应的时间、诊疗方法管理文件的存在和内容,以及诊疗方法证据的存在和质量。13.6% 的符合条件的 NHS 信托机构提供伪科学临床实践,没有一家信托机构提供有效的商业案例或任何有力的实践证据。管理文件中包括关于脉轮、经络和隐形能量的说法。有 10 家托管机构要求获得患者的知情同意。结论伪科学做法已深入英格兰国家医疗服务体系,管理文件显示出对临床证据的理解不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pseudoscience in Cancer Services; a survey of National Health Service Trusts in England
Scientifically implausible treatments are offered by some hospital cancer departments. Examples are reiki, aromatherapy, and reflexology. Salaried practitioners are employed to deliver these therapies, which are provided as palliative care, although they lack evidence of effectiveness. Such practices seem to conflict with efforts to make health care evidence based. The aim of this survey was to estimate the extent of certain pseudoscientific practices in cancer care departments in NHS hospitals in England, and to evaluate the rationale for such provision. Relevant documents were requested from NHS Trusts under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Main outcome measures were: number of trusts offering pseudoscientific practices in cancer departments, time to full FOIA response, presence and content of practice governance documents, and presence and quality of evidence for practices. 13.6% of eligible NHS trusts were offering pseudoscientific clinical practices. No trust provided a valid business case, or any robust evidence for the practices. The governance documents included claims about chakras, meridians, and invisible energy. Ten trusts required that informed consent be obtained from patients. This could not have been obtained because information given was misleading. Conclusions Pseudoscientific practices are embedded in the NHS in England, and governance documents show poor understanding of clinical evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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