Search

Approaches to time management in general practices characteristically focus on objective ‘clock time’, for example, through appointment scheduling. No less important, however, is how patients experience time duration. Time is experienced as having passed slowly (time prolongation), quickly (time compression) or in rough synchronization with clock time. Duration has been theorized to be positively associated with information processing. This paper builds on that theory to suggest how practices can influence patients’ subjective experience of duration in the practice environment, for example, by making waiting times appear to quicken and consultations appear to slow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Six years ago, the Supreme Court judgement in Montgomery v Lanarkshire changed medical law. It introduced a new patient‐based standard of care for the communication of treatment risks and alternatives, rejecting the doctor‐based standard that had long governed all aspects of medical negligence. This is the first systematic review to analyse the literature on Montgomery. Our aim is to appraise and synthesize the literature on Montgomery's impact on medicine and the law and to identify areas for further academic enquiry and implications for professional guidance and training. Methods: Searches were run in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Westlaw UK, HeinOnline, and LexisNexis. Two reviewers screened papers. Extracted data was analysed and discussed by an interdisciplinary team. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results: Of the 1134 papers identified, 100 met the inclusion criteria. These papers revealed significant disagreement on four core sets of issues, focusing on Montgomery's impact on: (1) legal and professional duties; (2) medical practice; (3) the patient experience; and (4) litigation. The first set addresses whether the case actually changed doctors' legal and professional duties, the relationship between GMC guidance and medical law, and the boundaries of Montgomery. The second explores whether the decision has incentivized defensive medicine, its resource implications, and doctors' knowledge of it. The third concerns whether and how the decision has promoted patient autonomy and involvement in their own care. The fourth focuses on whether the case has caused an increase in litigation. Conclusions: Despite the abundance of legal and medical literature on Montgomery, many issues remain unresolved. Empirical research is required for many of the questions. Doctrinal analysis informed by medical knowledge is also required to assess whether Montgomery may have unrecognized ramifications—for example, whether it will require the disclosure of risks associated with diagnostic uncertainty, where doctors advise patients without performing procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the complex landscape of health care, the relationship between medical practice and health insurance is increasingly crucial for effective care delivery. This paper emphasises the importance of integrating health insurance education into medical training, focusing on its impact on patient outcomes, health care accessibility, and system sustainability. It posits that health care providers with a comprehensive understanding of health insurance can offer more informed, efficient care by adeptly navigating coverage complexities. The study utilised a pretest‐post‐test design with a yearlong health insurance education curriculum at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Student participants from various medical programmes self‐assessed their knowledge and comfort across 13 health insurance topics before and after the intervention. The curriculum included workshops and a capstone project, emphasising real‐life patient insurance challenges. Results show statistically significant improvements in 13 participants' understanding of health insurance concepts, highlighting the curriculum's effectiveness. The findings advocate for the inclusion of health insurance education in medical curricula. Such knowledge is vital in systems with diverse insurance models, like the United States, where understanding insurance intricacies is key to patient care. The study's limitations, such as a small sample size and reliance on self‐reported data, suggest the need for further research with more participants and objective measures. In conclusion, incorporating health insurance education into medical training is essential for preparing health care professionals to navigate insurance complexities, make informed treatment decisions, and guide patients effectively. This approach fosters well‐rounded professionals capable of managing both medical and financial aspects of patient care, leading to more equitable and efficient health care delivery. Future research should explore the long‐term effects of this education on clinical practice and patient outcomes, particularly its impact on health care costs and patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Rationale: Regardless of health issue, health sector, patient condition, or treatment modality, the chances are that provision is supported by “a guideline” making professionally endorsed recommendations on best practice. Against this background, research has proliferated seeking to evaluate how effectively such guidance is followed. These investigations paint a gloomy picture with many a guideline prompting lip service, inattention, and even opposition. This predicament has prompted a further literature on how to improve the uptake of guidelines, and this paper considers how to draw together lessons from these inquiries. Methods: This huge body of material presents a considerable challenge for research synthesis, and this paper produces a critical, methodological comparison of 2 types of review attempting to meet that task. Firstly, it provides an overview of the current orthodoxy, namely, “thematic reviews,” which aggregate and enumerate the “barriers and facilitators” to guideline implementation. It then outlines a “realist synthesis,” focussing on testing the “programme theories” that practitioners have devised to improve guideline uptake. Results: Thematic reviews aim to provide a definitive, comprehensive catalogue of the facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation. As such, they present a restatement of the underlying problems rather than an improvement strategy. The realist approach assumes that the incorporation of any guideline into current practice will produce unintended system strains as different stakeholders wrestle over responsibilities. These distortions will prompt supplementary revisions to guidelines, which in turn beget further strains. Realist reviews follow this dynamic understanding of organisational change. Conclusions: Health care decision makers operate in systems that are awash with guidelines. But guidelines only have paper authority. Managers do not need a checklist of their pros and cons, because the fate of guidelines depends on their reception rather than their production. They do need decision support on how to engineer and reengineer guidelines so they dovetail with evolving systems of health care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stigma has been associated with delays in seeking treatment, avoiding clinical encounters, prolonged risk of transmission, poor adherence to treatment, mental distress, mental ill health and an increased risk of the recurrence of health problems, among many other factors that negatively impact on health outcomes. While the burdens and consequences of stigma have long been recognized in the health literature, there remains some ambiguity about how stigma is experienced by individuals who live with it. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the phenomenology of stigma, or to describe how it is that stigma shows up in the first‐person experience of individuals who live with stigma and its burdens. Exploring the relationship between shame and stigma, I argue that shame anxiety, or the chronic anticipation of shame, best characterises the experience of living with a health‐related, or health‐relevant, stigma. Understanding the experiential features, or phenomenology, of shame anxiety will give healthcare professionals a greater sensitivity to stigma and its impacts in clinical settings and encounters. I will conclude by suggesting that 'shame‐sensitive' practice would be beneficial in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to articles in the issue is presented on topics including an operational definition of shared decision-making for use in a wide range of healthcare contexts, problems created for shared decision-making when patients request Caesarean delivery without clinical indications, and differences between socially and individually optimal dosing strategies under conditions of vaccine scarcity.

Abstract: In this paper, we offer a minimal characterization of the concept of mechanism in biomedicine, according to which a mechanism is a theoretically described causal pathway. We argue that this conception can be drawn from scientific practice, as illustrated by how a central biological and biomedical mechanism, the mechanism of apoptosis, was first identified and characterized. We will use the example of cytological and biochemical theoretical descriptions of the mechanism of apoptosis to draw lessons about the meaning of the concept of mechanism in biomedical contexts and to contrast our preferred account of mechanism with some prominent accounts within the philosophical literature. The main outcome of our discussion will be that commitment to mechanism is first and foremost a methodological stance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The evidence based medicine movement has championed the need for objective and transparent methods of clinical guideline development. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was developed for that purpose. Central to this framework is criteria for assessing the quality of evidence from clinical studies and the impact that body of evidence should have on our confidence in the clinical effectiveness of a therapy under examination. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation has been adopted by a number of professional medical societies and organizations as a means for orienting the development of clinical guidelines. As a result, the method of GRADE has implications on how health care is delivered and patient outcomes. In this paper, we reveal several issues with the underlying logic of GRADE that warrant further discussion. First, the definitions of the “grades of evidence” provided by GRADE, while explicit, are functionally vague. Second, the “criteria for assigning grade of evidence” is seemingly arbitrary and arguably logically incoherent. Finally, the GRADE method is unclear on how to integrate evidence grades with other important factors, such as patient preferences, and trade‐offs between costs, benefits, and harms when proposing a clinical practice recommendation. Much of the GRADE method requires judgement on the part of the user, making it unclear as to how the framework reduces bias in recommendations or makes them more transparent—both goals of the programme. It is our view that the issues presented in this paper undermine GRADE's justificatory scheme, thereby limiting the usefulness of GRADE as a tool for developing clinical recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: This paper reports on the findings from 6 focus groups conducted with Australian medical students. The focus groups sought students' perspectives on how the influence of commercial interests on medical practice and education could be managed. Method: We conducted 6 focus groups with medical students in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were recruited via student‐run medical society and faculty e‐mail lists. Forty‐nine students from 6 medical schools in New South Wales participated. The research team reflected on the extent to which students uncritically appealed to science in the abstract as a management solution for conflicts of interest. Data analysis was largely inductive, looking for uses of scientific terminology, EBM, and appeals to “science” in the management of COI and applied theoretical analyses of scientism. Results: The students in our study suggested that science and evidence‐based medicine, rather than ethics or professionalism, were the best tools to deal with undue influence and bias. This paper uses philosophy of science literature to critically examine these scientistic appeals to science and EBM as a means of managing the influence of pharmaceutical reps and commercial interests. We argue that a scientistic style of reasoning is reinforced through medical curricula and that students need to be made aware of the epistemological assumptions that underpin science, medicine, and EBM to address the ethical challenges associated with commercialised health care. Conclusion: More work is needed to structure medical curricula to reflect the complexities of practice and realities of science. However, curricula change alone will not sufficiently address issues associated with commercial interests in medicine. For real change to occur, there needs to be a broader social and professional debate about the ways in which medicine and industry interact, and structural changes that restrict or mitigate commercial influences in educational, research, and policy settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Systems thinking and reference to complexity science have gained currency in health sector practice and research. The extent to which such ideas might represent a mere passing fad or might more usefully be mobilized to tackle wicked problems in health systems is a concern underpinning this paper. Developing the usefulness of the systems idea requires appreciating how systems ideas are used essentially as constructs conceptually bounded by practitioners. Systems are used for purposes of understanding and engaging the reality of health issues, with the intent of transforming the reality into one that is more manageable, equitable, and sustainable. We examine some manifestations of the systems idea in health practice and the traditions of systems practice that variously make use of them. This provides a platform for proposing a systems thinking in (health) practice heuristic: a learning device supporting how different tools and methods can address “wicked problems” in health praxis. The device is built on the use of “conversation” as a metaphor to help practitioners use systems ideas in tandem with existing disciplinary and professional skills and methods. We consider how the application of the heuristic requires, and helps to develop, human characteristics of humility, empathy, and recognition of fallibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores a novel clinical framework that is underpinned by a specific philosophical perspective of causation and its utility in clinical practice. A dispositional theory of causation may overcome challenges that clinicians face in complex clinical presentations including those that are medically unexplained. Dispositionalism identifies causes not as regular events necessitating an effect but rather phenomena, which are highly complex, context-sensitive, and which tend toward an effect. Diagnostic uncertainty and causal explanation are significant challenges in terms of clinical reasoning, communication, and the overall therapeutic outcome. This novel framework aims to facilitate improved collaborative clinical reasoning, enhanced patient-practitioner interaction, and supported treatment planning. The paper uses a real case study of a patient with nonspecific spinal pain to demonstrate the clinical framework as used in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent sacking of Peter Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration Board raised strong responses and highlights the neglected issue about priorities—maintaining the reputation of the organization or vigorously debating the merits of scientific approaches to find answers to complex problems? The Cochrane approach hales the randomized trial (RCT) as the gold standard research approach and affirms that meta‐analysis provides the ultimate proof (or platinum standard) to settle contentious issues confronting the clinician. However, most published medical research is wrong, and critics coined the acronym GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as a meme to highlight the risks of blind faith in the hyped‐up procedures of the EBM movement. This paper firstly explores the differences between the prevailing scientific method arising from the linear cause‐and‐effect assumption and the complex adaptive systems science methods arising from observations that most phenomena emerge from nonlinearity in networked systems. Most medical conditions are characterized by necessary features that by themselves are not sufficient to explain their nature and behaviour. Such nonlinear phenomena require modelling approaches rather than linear statistical and/or meta‐analysis approaches to be understood. These considerations also highlight that research is largely stuck at the data and information levels of understanding which fails clinicians who depend on knowledge—the synthesis of information—to apply in an adaptive way in the clinical encounter. Clinicians are constantly confronted with the linked challenges of doing things right and doing the right thing for their patients. EBM and Cochrane with their restrictive approaches are the antithesis to a practice of medicine that is responsive to constantly changing patient needs. As such, the EBM/Cochrane crisis opens a window of opportunity to re‐examine the nature of health, illness and disease, and the nature of health care and its systems for the benefits of its professionals and their patients. We are at the cusp of a paradigmatic shift towards an understanding a praxis of health care that takes account of its complexities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy 'at the bedside'? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions - about what we should do in any given situation - are embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case (metaphysics), what it is that we feel we can claim to know (epistemology), as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems. Traditional academic philosophers divide their discipline into distinct areas that typically include logic: questions about meaning, truth and validity; ontology: questions about the nature of reality, what exists; epistemology: concerning knowledge; and ethics: how we should live and practice, the nature of value. Any credible attempt to analyse clinical reasoning will require us to think carefully about these types of question and the relationships between them, as they influence our thinking about specific situations and problems. So, the answers to the question we posed, about the role of philosophy at the bedside, are numerous and diverse, and that diversity is illustrated in the contributions to this thematic edition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper is an introduction to the conference, The Guidelines Challenge, held in Oxford in October 2017. My aim is to explain our motivation for organising this conference, as part of the research project Causation, Complexity, and Evidence in Health Sciences (CauseHealth). Depending on the professional starting point, the guidelines challenge can be interpreted in a number of ways. Our idea with this conference was to discuss guidelines from 3 overarching perspectives: practice, policy, and philosophy. In particular, we wanted to discuss some of the challenges that face anyone developing and implementing clinical guidelines in the evidence‐based era of medicine. This introduction gives a brief overview of what CauseHealth sees as the guidelines challenge from these perspectives. More attention is given to the philosophical issues with which the CauseHealth project is particularly concerned, although a proper treatment or discussion of these issues naturally falls outside the scope of this introduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: What constitutes clinical reasoning is a disputed subject regarding the processes underlying accurate diagnosis, the importance of patient‐specific versus population‐based data, and the relation between virtue and expertise in clinical practice. In this paper, I present a model of clinical reasoning that identifies and integrates the processes of diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decision making. The model is based on the generalized empirical method of Bernard Lonergan, which approaches inquiry with equal attention to the subject who investigates and the object under investigation. After identifying the structured operations of knowing and doing and relating these to a self‐correcting cycle of learning, I correlate levels of inquiry regarding what‐is‐going‐on and what‐to‐do to the practical and theoretical elements of clinical reasoning. I conclude that this model provides a methodical way to study questions regarding the operations of clinical reasoning as well as what constitute significant clinical data, clinical expertise, and virtuous health care practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and clinical pathways have become important tools for improving the uptake of evidence‐based care. Where CPGs are good, adherence to the recommendations within is thought to result in improved patient outcomes. However, the usefulness of such tools for improving patient important outcomes depends both on adherence to the guideline and whether or not the CPG in question is good. This begs the question of what it is that makes a CPG good? In this issue of the Journal, Djulbegovic and colleagues offer a theory to help guide the development of CPGs. The “fast‐and‐frugal tree” (FFT) heuristic theory is purported to provide the theoretical structure needed to quantitatively assess clinical guidelines in practice, something that the lack of theory to guide CPG development has precluded. In this paper, I examine the role of FFTs in providing an adequate theoretical framework for developing CPGs. In my view, positioning guideline development within the FFT framework may help with problems related to adherence. However, I believe that FTTs fall short in providing panel members with the theoretical basis needed to justify which factors should be considered when developing a CPG, how information on those factors derived from research studies should be interpreted, and how those factors should be integrated into the recommendation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale The purpose of this paper is to explore new perspectives about difficulties academicians may have communicating with clinicians, obtaining subjects, and gaining compliance for their research. Aims and Objectives Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been defined as an integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values; however, clinical observation and experience are placed last in the evidence hierarchy with the randomized controlled trial held as the standard for clinical intervention. This paper describes how the hierarchical model of power in the research community obstructs new areas of knowledge, and how clinicians create resistance. Methods Foucault gave new perspectives describing how power circulates through individuals within organizational discourse. Drawing on literature and experience, and using a framework based on postmodern theoretical concepts, this paper examines patterns of discourse, subjectivity, resistance, and power/knowledge within the physical therapy profession. Results The hierarchical discourse of medical knowledge produces opposition rather than collaboration between researcher, clinician, and patient. Alleviating perceptions of dominance and creating connections produces cohesion within medical communities. Conclusions Evidence to practice and practice to evidence redefines EBM as a circular integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and setting This paper outlines the development of a diagnostic tool to help Primary Care general practitioner (GP) Practices diagnose the extent to which they are developing effective techniques for collective learning and if their Practice culture supports innovation. This project is undertaken by the University of St Andrews and NHS Education for Scotland. Methods Based on Learning Organization and Organizational Learning theory, and using a modified Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale, the Learning Practice Inventory (LPI) identifies attitudes, behaviours, processes, systems and organizational arrangements associated with being a Learning Practice. The LPI is a self-assessment, fixed-choice, survey-feedback tool that surveys all Practice members. Results The survey-feedback tool empowers Practice members to view, assess and prioritize the developments they wish to make collectively to Practice life. The LPI assumes complexity and non-linearity in change processes, used longitudinally it tracks the impact of change on Practice life through time. Practitioners and Practices involved in its development give favourable feedback on the tool, and its potential usefulness. Discussion This contributes to our wider understanding in three main ways: first, it applies the ideas of Learning Organizations and Organizational Learning to health care settings. Second, as a practical advance, the tool assumes complexity, non-linearity and systemic knock-on effects during change in Primary Care. Third, it offers practitioners who work together the opportunity to share knowledge and learning in practical ways helping them to change by themselves and for themselves and their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information retrieval technology tends to become nothing less than crucial in physician daily practice, notably in family medicine. Nevertheless, few studies examine impacts of this technology and their results appear controversial. Our article aims to explore these impacts using the medical literature, an organizational case study and the literature on organizations. The case study was embedded in an evaluation of the implementation of medical and pharmaceutical databases on handheld computers in a Canadian family medicine centre. Six physicians were interviewed on specific events relative to the use of these databases and on their general perception of impacts of this use on clinical decision making and the doctor–patient relationship. A thematic data analysis was performed concomitantly by both authors. Findings indicate six types of impact: practice improvement, reassurance, learning, confirmation, recall and frustration. These findings are interpreted in accordance with both a medical and organizational perspective. The fit with the literature on inter-organizational memory supports the transferability of the findings. In turn, this fit suggests how information retrieval technology may change physician routine. This study suggests a new basis for evaluating the impact of information retrieval technology in daily clinical practice. In conclusion, our paper encourages policy-makers to develop, and physicians to use, this technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how the practise of science in medicine may be subverted by the professionalism of medicine. The requirements of science as regards the axiom of the burden of proof and research design may be inevitably entangled with the influence of authority. This entanglement may be particularly strong in medical research because of the way the profession works and is organized. The nature and possible effects of this entanglement are explored by examining the cultural differences between scientists and professionals and their approach to authority. Then the nature of the axiom of burdens of proof and research design are described, followed by accompanying discussions of how aspects of authority and professional organization may influence them. Finally, concluding comments address ways forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the case for seeking to broaden the ‘evidence base’ of medicine and health care by the inclusion of qualitative research findings. In order for qualitative research to make a significant contribution, advocates of this approach must demonstrate its ability to address questions of relevance to practice and proponents of EBM must rethink their ideas as to what may constitute a research question. A definition of qualitative research is provided, highlighting the somewhat different assumptions which underpin this model. The potential contribution of qualitative findings is assessed and the paper examines the ways in which such insights can be utilized. Finally it addresses the question as to how qualitative findings can be incorporated in the ‘evidence base’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThis paper outlines seven essential characteristics of medical evidence and describes the implications of these for both the theory of evidence-based medicine and clinical practice. The seven characteristics are: (1) Provisional; (2) Defeasible; (3) Emergent; (4) Incomplete; (5) Constrained; (6) Collective and (7) Asymmetric. It is argued that the epistemological theory that best fits medical evidence is that of fallibilism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complex cases constitute a considerable part of what medical practitioners have to deal with. In this paper, I refer specifically to instances that are complex as they are related to the profound epistemological problem of underdetermination. The underdetermination thesis states that theories are underdetermined by data, meaning that any set of data is logically compatible with different scientific theories. For the medical practitioners, this means that there is a risk that the analysis they give or the judgments they make might be incorrect. As being incorrect might lead to patients experiencing additional, more intense or prolonged suffering, it is very important that uncertainty is dealt with in a professional way. The ancient scepticism proposed by Sextus Empiricus and the professional scepticism in auditing of today both offer systematic approaches to what is uncertain that might work also in a medical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Much is written about "multimorbidity" as it is a difficult problem for health systems, as it reflects a complex phenomenon unique to each individual health journey and health service context. This paper proposes the adoption of 2 constructs or knowledge streams into mainstream "multimorbidity" care which are arguably most important to person‐centered care—personal health perceptions and resilience. Analysis: "Multimorbidity" is the manifestation of multiple nonlinear physical, psychosocial, and environmental phenomena in an individual health journey. Multimorbidity encompasses very stable states for the most part together with highly unstable phases that are difficult to manage. Averting or controlling the underlying loss of resilience in instability can be challenging without early warning signals pointing towards tipping points. Monitoring resilience and early warning signals for tipping points is new to health care. Yet what should we monitor in the complexity of multimorbidity? There are multiple and competing health service features and biometrics that can be measured. However, an expanding of literature endorses importance of simply asking a person about their self‐rated health in order to provide predictions of their resilience and survival. Interoception, exemplified as self‐rated health, arises from internal neurocognitive self‐monitoring functions of different internal and external phenomena. Interoception is being to be recognized as predictors and barometers of resilience and survival. Conclusions: Two phenomena of human systems—interoception and resilience—can guide care in the complex nature of multimorbidity in unstable health journeys and should be incorporated into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to develop some thoughts on philosophical issues surrounding evidence-based medicine ( EBM), especially related to its epistemological dimensions. After considering the scope of several philosophical concepts that are relevant to the discussion, and drawing some distinctions among different aspects of EBM, we evaluate the status of EBM and suggest that EBM is mainly a meta-methodology. Then, we outline an evaluation of the thesis that EBM is a 'new paradigm' in the practice of medicine. We argue that EBM does not seem to have arisen in the way Kuhn imagined paradigms to arise but as a conscious, deliberate proposal, more as programme than as a reality. Furthermore, there is something paradoxical about appealing to evidence or to the best evidence as a way of promoting a new paradigm. For the proposal seems to assume that there is something that by its own virtue is the best evidence for a given time. But this idea would have been rejected by Kuhn. If EBM involves a genuine new alternative in the field of medicine and shows a way in which the discipline will endure henceforth, this indicates that it is not what Kuhn once called a 'paradigm' and even, paradoxically, it is good evidence that scientific paradigms do not exist, at least in medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives This paper addresses the challenge of investigating fidelity in the implementation of a complex rehabilitation intervention designed to increase the level of independence in personal activities of daily living of stroke patients living in UK care homes. A programme theory of intervention fidelity was constructed to underpin a process evaluation running alongside a cluster randomized trial of the rehabilitation intervention. Methods The programme theory has been constructed drawing on principles of realist evaluation. Using data from in-depth semi-structured interviews ( n = 17) with all occupational therapists ( OTs) and critical incident reports from the trial ( n = 20), and drawing from frameworks for implementation, the programme theory was developed. Results The programme theory incorporates four potential mechanisms through which fidelity within the trial can be investigated. These four programme theory areas are (1) the balancing of research and professional requirements that therapists performed in a number of areas while delivering the study interventions; (2) the OTs rapport building with care home staff; (3) the work focused on re-engineering the personal environments of care home patients; and (4) the learning about the intervention within the context of the trial and its impacts over time. Conclusions These findings characterize the real-world nature of fidelity within intervention research, and specifically the negotiated nature of implementation within clinical settings, including individual patients' needs. This research adds to the evidence base because current frameworks for fidelity neglect the importance of learning over time of individuals and across the time span of a trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aim and objectives This paper describes the results of the process evaluation of a physical activity programme for people with intellectual disabilities ( ID), including information about the concepts 'fidelity', 'dose delivered', 'satisfaction' and 'context'. Methods Qualitative and quantitative methods among participants and programme leaders were used. Results The programme was well accepted, feasible and applicable to ageing people with ID. It was successfully implemented in terms of fidelity and dose delivered, although differences between day-activity centres were observed. Conclusions The hampering factors that are revealed in this study and the facilitating activities that were part of the implementation plan may be used by care provider services for (ageing) people with ID and other groups of people with cognitive and/or physical deficits, such as frail elderly people or people with dementia when developing and or preparing implementation of health promotion programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Differences in the performance of medical care may be due to variation in the introduction and diffusion of medical innovations. The objective of this paper is to compare seven European countries ( United Kingdom, the Netherlands, West Germany, France, Spain, Estonia and Sweden) with regard to the year of introduction of six specific pharmaceutical innovations (antiretroviral drugs, cimetidine, tamoxifen, cisplatin, oxalaplatin and cyclosporin) that may have had important population health impacts. Methods We collected information on introduction and further diffusion of drugs using searches in the national and international literature, and questionnaires to national informants. We combined various sources of information, both official years of registration and other indicators of introduction (clinical trials, guidelines, evaluation reports, sales statistics). Results and conclusions The total length of the period between first and last introduction varied between 8 years for antiretroviral drugs and 22 years for cisplatin. Introduction in Estonia was generally delayed until the 1990s. The average time lags were smallest in France (2.2 years), United Kingdom (2.8 years) and the Netherlands (3.5 years). Similar rank orders were seen for year of registration suggesting that introduction lags are not only explained by differences in the process of registration. We discuss possible reasons for these between-country differences and implications for the evaluation of medical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last century, medicine has undergone an unprecedented wave of radical changes. From the implementation of surgery up to the development of single gene-targeted therapies, clinical decision making has become increasingly complex to handle. Today, this complexity needs to be rethought in the light of two emerging paradigms: evidence-based medicine ( EBM) and personalized medicine ( P- Med). The new availability of diverse sources of scientific evidence raises significant issues concerning how clinicians will compare, evaluate and orient their decisions in front of a rapidly growing plethora of therapies, procedures, medical technologies and drugs. In this paper, we compare the background visions behind these two paradigms, evaluating their respective relevance for present and future clinical decision making. In particular, we argue that EBM and P- Med are driven by two diverse modes of reasoning about 'evidence making' in medicine. EBM is grounded on statistical notions and epidemiological data, generally gathered through systematic meta-reviews of randomized controlled trials; P- Med, instead, is grounded on mechanistic explanations of molecular interactions, metabolic pathways and biomarkers. While both paradigms are epistemically sound, we argue that they cannot, and should not, be hybridized into a unique model. Rather, they ought to represent two compatible, but alternative ways of informing the clinical practice. Hence, we conclude that clinicians may expect to see their responsibility increasing as they will deal with diverse, but equally compelling, ways of reasoning and deciding about which intervention will qualify as the 'best one' in each individual case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical reasoning has been defined as a form of cognition applied to evaluating and managing a patient's medical problem. As a kind of cognition, a product of the human psyche, it is logical to expect that clinical reasoning should be best understood through methods derived from psychology, neuropsychology and the cognitive sciences. However, the application of scientific methods to evaluating clinical reasoning is unable to analyse clinical reasoning in terms of first-person experience and consciousness. By reducing clinical reasoning to its cognitive components the cognitivist approach tends to ignore the larger context in which clinical reasoning occurs. By reducing its conception of clinical reasoning to its cognitive components, the neuropsychological approach fails to acknowledge clinical reasoning as a form of intentionality, a gestalt, grounded in human perception. A full epistemology of clinical reasoning requires a phenomenological analysis that can make sense of the relation between pre-reflective consciousness and explicit forms of knowing. In this paper I conciliate cognition and consciousness in medicine through analysing the phenomenology of perception in clinical reasoning. I compare the application of phenomenology to clinical reasoning with the attempt to model clinical reasoning on Aristotelian practical wisdom or phronesis. Finally, I analyse empathy as a type of perception critical for effective clinical interaction and exemplary for reflecting on perception as the intersubjective foundation of clinical reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we explore the recent emphasis, in various medical contexts, of the term 'critical' or the notion of 'being critical'. We identify various definitions of being critical and note that they differ strikingly. What are these different uses of the term trying to capture that is important in clinical medicine and medical education? We have analysed these qualities as responsibilist, epistemic virtues. We believe that a virtues approach is best able to make sense of the non-cognitive elements of 'being critical', such as the honesty and courage to question claims in the face of persuasion, authority or social pressure. Medical educators and professional bodies seem to agree that being critical is important and desirable. Yet, it is unclear how this quality can be optimally fostered and balanced with the constraints that act upon individual practitioners in the context of institutional medicine including professional standards and the demands of the doctor-patient relationship. Other constraints such as authoritarianism, intimidation and financial pressures may act against the expression of being critical or even the cultivation of critical thinking. The issue of the constraints on critical thinking and the potential hazards it entails will require further consideration by those who encourage being critical in medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This paper provides a review of key issues affecting the uptake of clinical guidelines by general practitioners (GPs) in Australia and internationally. Attention is given to the barriers that affect guideline uptake, the quality of guidelines and the dissemination of guidelines to GPs in practice settings. Method A comprehensive cross-disciplinary literature review of peer-reviewed journals was conducted between January and April 2008. The literature review was undertaken by three independent researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. The review focused on studies that explored the barriers and issues associated with the use of guidelines in general practice and suggestions for more effective use. Results Pathways for clinicians to evaluate and use guidelines are still not clear. The majority of contemporary literature promotes linear ‘uptake’ and ‘accessibility’ models for clinical guidelines that may not attend to more complex issues associated with GPs' ways of practising on a daily basis. There are also few clear guidelines for GPs on how to ‘adapt’ guidelines for local and individual patient circumstances. Conclusions Peak organizations such as General Practice Queensland in Australia can have a significant role in helping GPs to evaluate and use clinical guidelines. The suggested approach emphasizes the need for such peak bodies to promote respect for practitioner experience, interpretation and patient insight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim At a time when workforce shortages in general practices are leading to greater role substitution and skill-mix diversification, and the demand on general practices for chronic disease care is increasing, the structure and function of the general practice team is taking on heightened importance. To assist general practices and the organizations supporting them to assess the effectiveness of their chronic care teamworking, we developed an interview tool, the Chronic Care Team Profile (CCTP), to measure the structure and function of teams in general practice. This paper describes its properties and potential use. Method An initial pool of items was derived from guidelines of best-practice for chronic disease care and performance standards for general practices. The items covered staffing, skill-mix, job descriptions and roles, training, protocols and procedures within the practice. The 41-item pool was factor analysed, retained items were measured for internal consistency and the reduced instrument's face, content and construct validity were evaluated. Results A three-factor solution corresponding to non-general practitioner staff roles in chronic care, administrative functions and management structures provided the best fit to the data and explained 45% of the variance in the CCTP. Further analyses suggested that the CCTP is reliable, valid and has some utility. Discussion The CCTP measures aspects of the structure and function of general practices which are independent of team processes. It is associated with the job satisfaction of general practice staff and the quality of care provided to patients with chronic illnesses. As such, the CCTP offers a simple and useful tool for general practices to assess their teamworking in chronic disease care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale This paper describes the development of the Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization SurvEy (EBASE), which was designed to measure complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner attitude to and utilization of evidence-based practice (EBP). Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the EBASE as a measure of CAM practitioner skill, attitude and use of EBP in order to adequately inform clinicians and researchers about this comprehensive survey tool. Methods EBASE and the clinical effectiveness and EBP questionnaire (EBPQ) were distributed to nine experts in CAM education, research, questionnaire design and/or EBP. Responses to these questionnaires were used to evaluate the content validity, convergent validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency of EBASE. Results EBASE has found to have good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84) and acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.578–0.986). The instrument also demonstrated good content validity (CVI = 0.899), and adequately measured practitioner skill and utilization of EBP when compared to the EBPQ. Conclusion The current study supports the validity and reliability of EBASE as a measure of CAM practitioner skill, attitude, experience and training in, as well as barriers and facilitating factors of EBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives The publication of health outcome data – rather than merely the measurement and collection – is being given increasing consideration. Publication reflects society's increasing emphasis on a general ‘right to know’, as well as being a means of informing consumer choice. In theory, publication may help to promote public trust, support patient choice, and stimulate action to improve the quality of care whilst controlling costs. Methods Drawing on a literature review, this paper overviews the strategies employed in the UK and US to publish outcome data. The focus is on outcomes, and certain related process measures, that measure the performance of hospitals or surgeons. Results and conclusions Presenting the limited evidence that exists, we review the potential beneficial and harmful effects of publishing hospital outcome data. We also consider the risks of making incorrect inferences based on these data and the potential for dysfunctional consequences. Recognizing that the public largely mistrusts currently published health outcome data, we offer some recommendations for the future direction of strategies for publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the translation of medical information into clinical practice and the role of thoughtful dissent by exploring the influence of sociological factors on change, the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM), and the role of industry. Changing practice related to hormone therapy for menopausal and post-menopausal women provides context for this discussion. Medical change involves diffusion of ideas to potential users and ongoing reconciliation of new information with old ideas; this process is influenced by sociological factors including values and experiences, interpersonal relationships and local context. While EBM has alerted doctors to the importance of high quality research and theoretically provides a tool for translating research into practice, there are important problems with its application: (1) it has resulted in a reductionist approach to research and illness; (2) there is a considerable gap between research findings and the complex environment of clinical practice; and (3) EBM has been appropriated by experts, thus corporately developed ‘standard-of-care’ documents have become instruments of external regulation, and EBM has ceased to be a tool in the hand of individual clinicians. In addition, industry impacts the translation of knowledge by significantly influencing academia, researchers, medical publications, consensus conferences, and practising doctors. While questioning doctrinaire practices or directives is a daunting prospect for individual clinicians, the translation of knowledge into practice and evolution of medical thought is dependent on the progressive role of thoughtful dissent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduces a series of articles featured in the May 2004 issue of the "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice."

Rationale: The restrictions to hospital visiting for carers and relatives during the pandemic were unprecedented. To ensure patients could stay in touch with their relatives and carers new liaison roles were introduced. Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study is to report on the evaluation of a Family Liaison Officer (FLO) role to understand the rationale for introducing the role along with the challenges and benefits of its implementation. Methods: A concurrent mixed methods design was used, triangulating both semi structured interviews and online surveys. Data were collected during 2021 from postholders, patients/relatives and key stakeholders. Results: The family liaison officer role occupies a key brokering role between clinical teams and patients/relatives. All participants agreed the importance of the role particularly in relation to communication. Postholders noted issues around clarity of scope of practice. Patients reported the social benefits of the FLOs particularly in relation to technology. There was also key learning in terms of induction, training and line management of this nonprofessional role. Conclusion: There is limited research that evaluates emerging nonprofessional roles that connect clinical teams and patients/relatives. This evaluation study although limited to one organisation provides important insights to the strategic and operational learning to introducing a family liaison officer role during the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emphasis provided by quality improvement strategies on performance measurement and evaluation often results in our understanding of ?processes of care and, perhaps, better outcomes. There are different references for process evaluation: external peers, regional profiles of ?performance or a trending of one's own performance patterns. This paper proposes a methodology that enables learning from the daily practice of medicine by comparing alternative care processes and outcomes. Since it is estimated that 15–20% of medical practices are based on rigorous scientific data establishing their effectiveness, we have much to learn. We propose to learn from our daily practice by combining clinical research methods with quality improvement tools. The products comprise modified clinical trial and case–control studies. In a modified clinical trial, we would use a practice guideline as a control group and modify the guideline to create an experimental group. This method would maintain the internal validity of efficacy research while maintaining the external validity of effectiveness research. In the case–control method, it is possible to quantitate risk for a given outcome and focus improvement effort on factors associated with that outcome. We believe physicians will accept this learning approach because it is a more valid learning method than traditional quality improvement and, unlike randomized clinical trials, learning will occur in the daily practice of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three papers in this issue of the Journal illustrate the challenges of measuring and reporting therapeutic mishaps. Using a broad definition of ‘adverse incidents’ that embraces injuries (including death) from any cause, drug errors, unexpected events (e.g. convulsions) or findings (e.g. Hb8gm/dl), and worrisome indicators (e.g. LOS5 days), Stanhope et al. (1998) found 196 incidents identified from 500 consecutive deliveries in two obstetric units. While many (most?) of these ‘incidents’ were not actual injuries, the fact that 39% of patients had something other than a perfectly smooth course is very disturbing. It is an unpleasant reminder that, even in 1996, the most normal of biological events, childbirth, is still fraught with hazard. Also disturbing, but less surprising, is their finding that of incidents that were discoverable on later record review only 23% were reported (as required) when they occurred. In their search for explanations for non-reporting by survey of the staffs of these same two units, Vincent et al. (1998) found that one-third of physicians did not know how to find the list of reportable incidents and 15% did not know how to file a report. No single reason for non-reporting among 12 reasons suggested by the investigators was accepted by a majority of respondents, suggesting that the problem is multi-factorial or, more probably, denial of reality by the respondents. The authors also note the role of perceived lack of necessity and concern about disciplinary action as factors in non-reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Nosology is the science of defining and classifying diseases. Meta‐nosology is the study of how we do this, on what principles nosological practices are based, the quality of the resulting medical taxonomy, and primarily whether/how diseases can be defined better than they are now. In modern Western medicine, there are a wide variety of ways in which diseases are defined and categorized. Examples include by the symptoms they present with (syndromic), their underlying causes (etiological), the biological mechanisms involved (pathogenetic), available treatments, historical precedent, and through diagnostic exclusion. Here, I explore the hypothesis that how we define diseases has an impact on how (and how effectively) we research and treat them. I explore the philosophical implications of this thesis and suggest a direction that the underlying metaphysics of disease definition might follow. I conclude that further research is warranted into whether our current disease definitions could be improved upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Rationale, aims, and objectives: Process evaluation can be used to understand the factors influencing the impact of knowledge translation (KT) interventions. The aim of this mixed methods process evaluation was to evaluate the processes and perceived outcomes of eight KT interventions that were used with healthcare aides (HCAs) to introduce a mobility innovation into their daily care practices. The study examined the perceived effectiveness of various KT interventions in sustaining daily performance of the sit‐to‐stand mobility innovation by HCAs with residents in long‐term care. Method: In‐person interviews were conducted with four leaders across three long‐term care facilities. Seven focus groups with 27 HCAs were conducted across the three facilities. All participants were asked to rank the eight interventions involved in the trial according to their perceived effectiveness and, for the leaders, their perceived ease of implementation. Focus group and interview questions asked participants to discuss the relative merits of each KT intervention. Two research assistants coded all of the transcripts independently using content analysis. Results: Both HCAs and their leaders perceived reminders, followed by discussion groups, to be the most effective KT interventions to sustain practice change. Healthcare aide champions were deemed least effective by both leaders and HCAs. Leaders identified both the focus group discussion and audit and feedback posters in the study as the most difficult to implement. Participants valued interventions that were strategically visible, helped to clarify misconceptions about the new care innovation, supported teamwork, and made visible the resident benefits of the care innovation. Logistical issues, such as staff scheduling and workload, influenced the perceived feasibility of the various KT interventions. Conclusions: Understanding how care staff in long‐term care settings perceive KT interventions can inform the choice of future use of these interventions to move research evidence into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical guidelines can be effective in achieving health gain when they are validly developed, disseminated and implemented appropriately. There is, however, a potential conflict between the need for validity through use of expert resources available at a national level, and implementation, which is undertaken at local level and depends on the local relevance of the guideline. This paper presents a model by which valid guidelines for the management of a given disease (genital chlamydial infection) by general practitioners can be developed at local level using the resources available to a district health authority department of public health. The model has three elements. First, a district-wide postal questionnaire survey was used to document current clinical practice. Secondly, a critical review of the evidence relating to the management of genital chlamydial infection as it relates to British general practice was performed. Thirdly, the information gained from the critical review and survey was used by a multidisciplinary group to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. It is argued that the Leicestershire Genital Chlamydia Guidelines compare favourably with other recently published national guidelines in terms of their development and content. Local guideline development of guidelines for selected topics can be practical and appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including the use of modern neuroscience research in clinical medicine, translational neuroscience research, and neuroimaging in education.

Rationale and Aims: The prevalence of chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) is high and rising. The multidimensional impact of CMSP on individuals necessitates multidisciplinary evidence‐based strategies to prevent and manage chronic pain. Primary health care (PHC) is the first point of care in many healthcare systems and evidence implementation at this point is important. We aim to describe the process of development of a comprehensive list of evidence‐based recommendations derived from different high‐quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform the PHC healthcare of adults with CMSP. Method: A systematic review was conducted of CPGs that focussed on PHC management of CMSP in adults. CPGs were identified by searching 13 guideline clearinghouses and five online databases. Eligible CPGs were critically appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation, Version II (AGREE II). A stepwise systematic process was followed to identify a core set of recommendations. This process comprised the following: extract recommendations; analyze recommendations; synthesize recommendations by assimilating similar recommendations; determine the strength of the body of evidence underpinning the recommendations and produce a list of synthesized recommendations. Results: Six high‐quality CPGs were identified, providing 156 recommendations. These were condensed to 42 statements covering topics about the approach to care, assessment, advice and education, referral, pharmacological management, physical therapy, electrotherapy, psychological therapy, complementary therapy and self‐management. The set of recommendations encompasses a person‐centered approach, collaborative decision making, a biopsychosocial approach, patient education and empowerment towards self‐management. Conclusion: The process of developing composite recommendations from multiple CPGs enables end‐users to access comprehensive information on managing CMSP in PHC settings that is not available from one singular CPG. The content and evidence base for recommendations varied between CPGs. A similar stepwise process may be used to develop a core set of recommendations for other health conditions, where multiple, diverse CPGs exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify outcome measures used to evaluate performance of healthcare professional role substitution against usual medical doctor or specialist medical doctor care to facilitate our understanding of the adequacy of these measures in assessing quality of healthcare delivery. Methods: Using a systematic approach, we searched Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from database inception until May 2020. Studies that presented original comparative data on at least one outcome measure were included following screening by two authors. Findings were synthesized, and outcome measures classified into six domains which included: effectiveness, safety, appropriateness, access, continuity of care, efficiency, and sustainability which were informed by the Institute of Medicine dimensions of healthcare quality, the Australian health performance framework, and Levesque and Sutherland's integrated performance measurement framework. Results: One thirty five articles met the inclusion criteria, describing 58 separate outcome measures. Safety of role substitution models of care was assessed in 80 studies, effectiveness (n = 60), appropriateness (n = 40), access (n = 36), continuity of care (n = 6), efficiency and productivity (n = 45). Two‐thirds of the studies that assessed productivity and efficiency performed an economic analysis (n = 27). The quality and rigour of evaluations varied substantially across studies, with two‐thirds of all studies measuring and reporting outcomes from only one or two of these domains. Conclusions: There are a growing number of studies measuring the performance of non‐medical healthcare professional substitution roles. Few have been subject to robust evaluations, and there is limited evidence on the scientific rigour and adequacy of outcomes measured. A systematic and coordinated approach is required to support healthcare settings in assessing the value of non‐medical role substitution healthcare delivery models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Describes the introduction of a program organized by the Leicestershire Health Authority in England that would develop and implement local evidence-based medicine guidelines, based on national guidelines or quality systematic reviews. Formation of the Effectiveness and Outcome Forum; Appointment of guideline adaptation groups; Investigation of barriers.

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editors discuss the various topics within the issue, including the complex adaptive system (CAS) framework, uncertainties in medical education, and system design and modelling.

Background: Occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) programs in Canada have moved to graduate‐level entry education to address graduates' readiness for evidence‐based practice (EBP). Whether rehabilitation professionals with advanced training in EBP are meeting their responsibilities as evidence‐based professionals upon entry into practice and the factors that influence the use of evidence is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors associated with the use of EBP and supporting evidence‐based activities among graduates of professional OT and PT master's programs. Methods: A cross‐sectional design using a survey of recent graduates of the 29 OT and PT programs in Canada. The survey measured six constructs supportive of EBP (ie, knowledge, attitudes, confidence, organizational resources, actual use of EBP, and evidence‐based activities). Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics to characterize the sample and the different variables and ordinal multivariate regression analysis. Results: 257 graduates (15%) completed the survey. Attitudes towards EBP was positively associated both with evidence‐based activities (odds ratio = 1.36 with a 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.52) and use of EBP (odds ratio = 1.23 with a 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.36); greater confidence was related to greater use of EBP (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.24); and working in a private practice setting was found to be related to performing more evidence‐based activities (odds ratio = 3.15, 95% CI: 1.40 to 7.12). Conclusions: Despite a greater focus on EBP knowledge in these curricula across Canada, knowledge was not related to EBP use nor evidence‐based activities upon entry into practice. On the other hand, attitudes, confidence and working in private practice were. University programs should consider curricular strategies that increase the use of EBP, provide opportunities to engage in evidence‐based activities with an emphasis on promoting the development of positive attitudes towards EBP and increasing learners' confidence in their ability to be evidence‐based professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]