Matters of Judgement: Concepts of evidence among teachers of medicine and public health

Introduction The aim of this study was to examine how the term “evidence” was conceived and used among academics and practitioners who teach medicine and public health. The rationale for the study was the widespread debate in the 1990s about evidence in health care. Methods Qualitative data were collected between 1996 to 1999. The core data came from unstructured interviews with researchers and practitioners linked to the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney. Other sources of data were: participant observation of group interactions in the Faculty of Medicine and at national and international conferences about evidence in health care; discourse in health care literature; and Internet posting to an international “evidence-based health” Email discussion list. The Grounded Theory method was adopted to analyse and interpret these data. The process involved systematic coding of the data to develop conceptual categories. These categories were employed to formulate propositions about the topic of evidence and how it was conceived and used by the study participants. Results Researchers and practitioners often discussed evidence from a “realist” view: that is they valued scientifically derived and rigorously substantiated knowledge about the natural world. Yet despite their widely shared epistemological perspectives, study participants presented several diverse concepts of evidence. Their ideas were also dynamic and evolving, and often influenced by the developing (local and international) debates and controversies about evidence-based medicine (EBM). Grounded Theory analysis leads to the selection of a core “social process”. This is a core conceptual category that draws together the ideas observed in the data, and that is adopted to present the study findings. In this study, “judgement” was identified as the core social process to underpin all examined reflections and discussions about evidence. Study participants defined the concept of evidence through a combination of description and appraisal. Evidence was described in three ways, i.e.: as a “measure of reality”, by its “functional role”, or as a “constructed product”. Evidence was also appraised on three “dimensions”, i.e.: “benchmarked”, “applied” and “social” dimensions of evidence. Participants invoked these concepts of evidence differently when forming their own judgements about medical or public health knowledge; when making decisions about clinical practice; and when using argument and persuasion to influence the judgements of others. Many researchers and practitioners also modified their judgements on evidence in the light of EBM. This was based on perceptions that EBM had become a dominant rhetoric within health care, which had the potential to channel the flow of resources. This led to an increasing consideration of the “social dimension” of evidence, and of the social construction and possible “misuse” of the term evidence. Conclusions The concept of evidence is presented in this study as a multi-dimensional construct. I have proposed that the three descriptions and three dimensions of evidence presented in this study, and recognition of the way these may be invoked when forming and influencing judgments, can be used as a basis for communicating about evidence in medicine and public health among colleagues and with students. There are significant gaps in knowledge (based on empirical research) about the social dimension of evidence. Particularly, in situations where researchers and practitioners wish to employ the concept of evidence to influence others’ medical and public health practice and wider social policy

Informing implementation of quality improvement in Australian primary care

Background: Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives in primary care are effective at improving uptake of evidence based guidelines, but are difficult to implement and sustain. In Australia meso-level health organisations such as Primary health care Organisations (PHCO) offer new opportunities to implement area-wide QI programs. This study sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of an existing Australian QI program and to identify strategic directions that PHCOs can use in the ongoing development of QI in this environment. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 purposively selected program staff and participants from the Australian Primary Care Collaborative (APCC) QI program. Interviewees included seven people involved in design, administration and implementation of the APCC program and eight primary care providers (seven General Practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse) who had participated in the program from 2004 to 2014. Interviewees were asked to describe their experience of the program and reflect on what enabled or impeded its implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and iteratively analysed, with early analysis informing subsequent interviews. Identified themes and their implications were reviewed by a GP expert reference group. Results: Implementation enablers and barriers were grouped into five thematic areas: (1) leadership, particularly the identification and utilisation of change champions; (2) organisational culture that supports quality improvement; (3) funding incentives that support a culture of quality and innovation; (4) access to and use of accurate data; and 5) design and utilisation of clinical systems that enable and support these issues. In all of these areas, the active involvement of an overarching external support organisation was considered a key ingredient to successful implementation. Conclusion: There are substantial opportunities for PHCOs to play a pivotal role in QI implementation in Australia and internationally. In developing QI programs and policies, such organisations ought to invest their efforts in: (1) identifying and mentoring local leaders; (2) fostering QI culture via development of local peer networks; (3) developing and advocating for alternative funding models to support and incentivise these activities; (4) investing in data and audit tool infrastructure; and (5) facilitation of systems implementation within primary care practices

Tracking the impact of intervention research reveals complex interplay of researchers’ actions and external factors.

Lucie Rychetnik and Robyn Newson were part of a research group examining the ‘real-world’ impacts of health intervention research. Using an impact assessment scoring system, they found a wide range of possible impacts. They also found local contextual and organisational factors, and unpredictable windows of opportunity were as important as the skills of individual researchers and the quality of their research

Primary goals, information-giving and men\u27s understanding: A qualitative study of Australian and UK doctors\u27 varied communication about PSA screening

Objectives: (1) To characterise variation in general practitioners’ (GPs’) accounts of communicating with men about prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (2) to characterise GPs’ reasons for communicating as they do and (3) to explain why and under what conditions GP communication approaches vary. Study design and setting: A grounded theory study. We interviewed 69 GPs consulting in primary care practices in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29). Results: GPs explained their communication practices in relation to their primary goals. In Australia, three different communication goals were reported: to encourage asymptomatic men to either have a PSA test, or not test, or alternatively, to support men to make their own decision. As well as having different primary goals, GPs aimed to provide different information (from comprehensive to strongly filtered) and to support men to develop different kinds of understanding, from population-level to ‘gist’ understanding. Taking into account these three dimensions (goals, information, understanding) and building on Entwistle et al’s Consider an Offer framework, we derived four overarching approaches to communication: Be screened, Do not be screened, Analyse and choose, and As you wish. We also describe ways in which situational and relational factors influenced GPs’ preferred communication approach. Conclusion: GPs’ reported approach to communicating about prostate cancer screening varies according to three dimensions—their primary goal, information provision preference and understanding sought—and in response to specific practice situations. If GP communication about PSA screening is to become more standardized in Australia, it is likely that each of these dimensions will require attention in policy and practice support interventions

Framing overdiagnosis in breast screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify how the topic of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is framed by experts and to clarify differences and similarities within these frames in terms of problems, causes, values and solutions. Methods: We used a qualitative methodology using interviews with breast screening experts across Australia and applying framing theory to map and analyse their views about overdiagnosis. We interviewed 33 breast screening experts who influence the public and/or policy makers via one or more of: public or academic commentary; senior service management; government advisory bodies; professional committees; non-government/consumer organisations. Experts were currently or previously working in breast screening in a variety of roles including clinical practice, research, service provision and policy, consumer representation and advocacy. Results: Each expert used one or more of six frames to conceptualise overdiagnosis in breast screening. Frames are described as: Overdiagnosis is harming women; Stop squabbling in public; Don’t hide the problem from women; We need to know the overdiagnosis rate; Balancing harms and benefits is a personal matter; and The problem is overtreatment. Each frame contains a different but internally coherent account of what the problem is, the causes and solutions, and a moral evaluation. Some of the frames are at least partly commensurable with each other; others are strongly incommensurable. Conclusions: Experts have very different ways of framing overdiagnosis in breast screening. This variation may contribute to the ongoing controversy in this topic. The concept of experts using different frames when thinking and talking about overdiagnosis might be a useful tool for those who are trying to negotiate the complexity of expert disagreement in order to participate in decisions about screening

Decision makers\u27 experience of participatory dynamic simulation modelling: Methods for public health policy

Background: Systems science methods such as dynamic simulation modelling are well suited to address questions about public health policy as they consider the complexity, context and dynamic nature of system-wide behaviours. Advances in technology have led to increased accessibility and interest in systems methods to address complex health policy issues. However, the involvement of policy decision makers in health-related simulation model development has been lacking. Where end-users have been included, there has been limited examination of their experience of the participatory modelling process and their views about the utility of the findings. This paper reports the experience of end-user decision makers, including senior public health policy makers and health service providers, who participated in three participatory simulation modelling for health policy case studies (alcohol related harm, childhood obesity prevention, diabetes in pregnancy), and their perceptions of the value and efficacy of this method in an applied health sector context. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with end-user participants from three participatory simulation modelling case studies in Australian real-world policy settings. Interviewees were employees of government agencies with jurisdiction over policy and program decisions and were purposively selected to include perspectives at different stages of model development. Results: The ‘co-production’ aspect of the participatory approach was highly valued. It was reported as an essential component of building understanding of the modelling process, and thus trust in the model and its outputs as a decision-support tool. The unique benefits of simulation modelling included its capacity to explore interactions of risk factors and combined interventions, and the impact of scaling up interventions. Participants also valued simulating new interventions prior to implementation in the real world, and the comprehensive mapping of evidence and its gaps to prioritise future research. The participatory aspect of simulation modelling was time and resource intensive and therefore most suited to high priority complex topics with contested options for intervening. Conclusion: These findings highlight the value of a participatory approach to dynamic simulation modelling to support its utility in applied health policy settings

Information provision in cervical screening in Australia

• The National Cervical Screening Program, and associated state and territory organisations, are responsible for promoting cervical screening. Communication via multiple media channels encourages women to be screened. • Some communications are not clear about misrepresent the risk of cervical cancer and the protective capacity and reliability of the Pap smear. The potential harms of screening are rarely presented. • Participation is a key performance indicator for the Program. • Women receive Pap tests from clinicians, mostly general practitioners (GPs) who often screen opportunistically during already-busy appointments. Incentive Payments encourage high screening rates. • Consent is an important ethical principle in the delivery of all health care. Provision of material information is one of the elements of valid consent. • The combination of arguably ambiguous misleading communications, screening participation targets, and opportunistic testing under time pressure seems likely to undermine opportunities for women participating in the cervical cancer screening program to be informed. • Of particular concern are women who are less likely to benefit, women who are more likely to experience harm, and some groups of disadvantaged women. • Improved communications could include the absolute risk of cervical cancer and the morbidity and mortality benefits and harms of screening. Screening programs internationally have begun providing such information. • Performance indicators could value evidence of discussion or informing. • Areas for further research include the appropriate roles of the program, screeners, and individuals in providing and seeking information. Such work would identify the optimum method for informing women in the screening process

‘Organised’ cervical screening 45 years on: How consistent are organised screening practices?

Organised screening programmes have been remarkably successful in reducing incidence and mortality from cervical cancer, while opportunistic screening varies in its effectiveness. Experts recommend that cervical screening or HPV testing be carried out only in the context of an organised programme. We sought to answer the following study questions: What does it mean for a cervical screening programme to be organised? Is there a place for opportunistic screening (in an organised programme)? We reviewed 154 peer-reviewed papers on organised and opportunistic approaches to cervical screening published between 1970 and 2014 to understand how the term ‘organised’ is used, formally and in practice. We found that despite broad recognition of a prescriptive definition of organisation, in practice the meaning of organisation is much less clear. Our review revealed descriptions of organised programmes that differ significantly from prescribed norms and from each other, and a variety of ways that opportunistic and organised programmes intersect. We describe the breadth of the variation in cervical cancer screening programmes and examine the relationships and overlaps between organised and opportunistic screening. Implications emerging from the review include the need to better understand the breadth of organisation in practice, the drivers and impacts of opportunistic screening and the impact of opportunistic screening on population programme outcomes. Appreciation of the complexity of cervical screening programmes will benefit both screeners and women as programmes are changed to reflect a partially vaccinated population, new evidence and new technologies

The role of communication in breast cancer screening: A qualitative study with Australian experts

Background: One well-accepted strategy for optimising outcomes in mammographic breast cancer screening is to improve communication with women about screening. It is not always clear, however, what it is that communication should be expected to achieve, and why or how this is so. We investigated Australian experts’ opinions on breast screening communication. Our research questions were: 1 What are the views of Australian experts about communicating with consumers on breast screening? 2 How do experts reason about this topic? Methods: We used a qualitative methodology, interviewing 33 breast screening experts across Australia with recognisable influence in the Australian mammographic breast cancer screening setting. We used purposive and theoretical sampling to identify experts from different professional roles (including clinicians, program managers, policy makers, advocates and researchers) with a range of opinions about communication in breast screening. Results: Experts discussed the topic of communication with consumers by focusing on two main questions: how strongly to guide consumers’ breast cancer screening choices, and what to communicate about overdiagnosis. Each expert adopted one of three approaches to consumer communication depending on their views about these topics. We labelled these approaches: Be screened; Be screened and here’s why; Screening is available please consider whether it’s right for you. There was a similar level of support for all three approaches. Experts’ reasoning was grounded in how they conceived of and prioritised their underlying values including: delivering benefits, avoiding harms, delivering more benefits than harms, respecting autonomy and transparency. Conclusions: There is disagreement between experts regarding communication with breast screening consumers. Our study provides some insights into this persisting lack of consensus, highlighting the different meanings that experts give to values, and different ways that values are prioritised. We suggest that explicit discussion about ethical values might help to focus thinking, clarify concepts and promote consensus in policy around communication with consumers. More specifically, we suggest that decision-makers who are considering policy on screening communication should begin with identifying and agreeing on the specific values to be prioritised and use this to guide them in establishing what the communication aims will be and which communication strategy will achieve those aims