Search

Aims: This paper aims to describe the contextual factors that gave rise to evidence-based medicine (EBM), as well as its controversies and limitations in the current health context. Our analysis utilizes two frameworks: (1) a complex adaptive view of health that sees both health and healthcare as non-linear phenomena emerging from their different components; and (2) the unified approach to the philosophy of science that provides a new background for understanding the differences between the phases of discovery, corroboration, and implementation in science., Results: The need for standardization, the development of clinical epidemiology, concerns about the economic sustainability of health systems and increasing numbers of clinical trials, together with the increase in the computer's ability to handle large amounts of data, have paved the way for the development of the EBM movement. It was quickly adopted on the basis of authoritative knowledge rather than evidence of its own capacity to improve the efficiency and equity of health systems. The main problem with the EBM approach is the restricted and simplistic approach to scientific knowledge, which prioritizes internal validity as the major quality of the studies to be included in clinical guidelines. As a corollary, the preferred method for generating evidence is the explanatory randomized controlled trial. This method can be useful in the phase of discovery but is inadequate in the field of implementation, which needs to incorporate additional information including expert knowledge, patients' values and the context., Conclusion: EBM needs to move forward and perceive health and healthcare as a complex interaction, i.e. an interconnected, non-linear phenomenon that may be better analysed using a variety of complexity science techniques.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: The concept of emergence offers a new way of thinking about multimorbidity and chronic disease., Results and Conclusions: Multimorbidity and chronic disease are the end results of ongoing perturbations and interconnected activities of simpler substructures that collectively constitute the complex adaptive superstructure known as us, the person or patient. Medical interventions cause perturbations of many different subsystems within the patient, hence they are not limited to the person's bodily function, but also affect his general health perception and his interactions with his external environments. Changes in these domains inevitably have consequences on body function, and close the feedback loop of illness/disease, recovery and regained health., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Rationale: The new area of health system research requires a revision of the taxonomy of scientific knowledge that may facilitate a better understanding and representation of complex health phenomena in research discovery, corroboration and implementation., Method: A position paper by an expert group following and iterative approach., Results: 'Scientific evidence' should be differentiated from 'elicited knowledge' of experts and users, and this latter typology should be described beyond the traditional qualitative framework. Within this context 'framing of scientific knowledge' (FSK) is defined as a group of studies of prior expert knowledge specifically aimed at generating formal scientific frames. To be distinguished from other unstructured frames, FSK must be explicit, standardized, based on the available evidence, agreed by a group of experts and subdued to the principles of commensurability, transparency for corroboration and transferability that characterize scientific research. A preliminary typology of scientific framing studies is presented. This typology includes, among others, health declarations, position papers, expert-based clinical guides, conceptual maps, classifications, expert-driven health atlases and expert-driven studies of costs and burden of illness., Conclusions: This grouping of expert-based studies constitutes a different kind of scientific knowledge and should be clearly differentiated from 'evidence' gathered from experimental and observational studies in health system research., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is widely taken up as the universal operational framework for redesigning health systems to address the increasing chronic disease burden of an ageing population. Chronic care encompasses health promotion, prevention, self management, disease control, treatment and palliation to address 'chronicity' of long journeys through disease, illness and care in the varying contexts of complex health systems. Yet at an operational level, CCM activities are predominantly based on an evidence-base of discreet chronic disease interventions in specific settings; and their demonstrable impact is limited to processes of select disease management such as diabetes in specific disease management programs., Aims: This paper proposes a framework that makes sense of the nature of chronicity and its multiple dimensions beyond disease and argues for a set of building blocks and leverage points that should constitute the starting points for 'redesign'?, Findings: Complex Adaptive Chronic Care is proposed as an idea for an explanatory and implementation framework for addressing chronicity in existing and future chronic care models. Chronicity is overtly conceptualized to encompass the phenomena of an individual journey, with simple and complicated, complex and chaotic phases, through long term asymptomatic disease to bodily dysfunction and illness, located in family and communities. Chronicity encompasses trajectories of self-care and health care, as health, illness and disease co-exist and co-evolve in the setting of primary care, local care networks and at times institutions. A systems approach to individuals in their multi-layered networks making sense of and optimizing experiences of their chronic illness would build on core values and agency around a local vision of health, empowerment of individuals and adaptive leadership, and it responds in line with the local values inherent in the community's disease-based knowledge and the local service's history and dynamics. Complex Adaptive Chronic Care exceeds the current notions of disease management as an endpoint. Primary care team members are system adaptors in partnership with individuals constructing their care and system leadership in response to chronic illness, and enable healthy resilience as well as personal healing and support. Outcomes of complex adaptive chronic care are the emergence of health in individuals and communities through adaptability, self-organization and empowerment., Discussion: Chronic care reform from within a complex adaptive system framework is bottom up and emergent and stands in stark contrast to (but has to co-exist with) the prevailing protocol based disease care rewarding selective surrogate indicators of disease control. Frameworks such as the Chronic Care Model provide guidance, but do not replace individual experience, local adaptive leadership and responsiveness. The awareness of complexity means opening up problems to a different reality demanding different set of questions and approaches to answer them.

Over the past decade the Australian health care system has moved rapidly toward a greater emphasis on medical care being provided within the community. This trend can only continue as our population ages and levels of chronic and complex illness continue to rise. Primary care now includes: a higher proportion of general practitioners working in group practices supported by practice nurses and allied health professionals- both on site and in the community, increased patient presentations for chronic and complex disease - often compounded by mental health and social issues, and, more hospital in the home, early discharge and similar programmes enabling shared management of sicker patients in the community.