PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Richard Ashcroft

Publications and source records attributed to Richard Ashcroft.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Teaching evidence-based medicine to undergraduate medical students: a course integrating ethics, audit, management and clinical epidemiology.

A six-week full time course for third-year undergraduate medical students at Imperial College uniquely links evidence-based medicine (EBM) with ethics and the management of change in health services. It is mounted jointly by the Medical and Business Schools and features an experiential approach. Small teams of students use a problem-based strategy to address practical issues identified from a range of clinical placements in primary and secondary care settings. The majority of these junior clinical students achieve important objectives for learning about teamwork, critical appraisal, applied ethics and health care organisations. Their work often influences the care received by patients in the host clinical units. We discuss the strengths of the course in relation to other accounts of programmes in EBM. We give examples of recurring experiences from successive cohorts and discuss assessment issues and how our multi-phasic evaluation informs evolution of the course and the potential for future developments.

Curriculum↗
PubMed2004

Research ethics committees: differences and moral judgement.

Many people argue that disagreements and inconsistencies between Research Ethics Committees are morally problematic and there has been much effort to 'harmonise' their judgements. Some inconsistencies are bad because they are due to irrationality, or carelessness, or the operation of conflicting interests, an so should be reduced or removed. Other inconsistencies, we argue, are not bad and should be left or even encouraged. In this paper we examine three arguments to reject the view that we should strive for complete consistency between committees. The first argument is that differences in judgement are not necessarily incompatible with ideas of justice for patients who are potential participants of research reviewed by different committees. We call this 'the justice argument.' The second argument is that such committees do not have access to a single moral truth, to which their judgement is supposed to correspond. We call this the 'moral pluralism argument.' The third argument is that the process of ethics committee review is also morally relevant and not solely the outcome. We call this the 'due process argument.' While we fall short of establishing exactly how much variation and on what substantive issues would ethical permissible, we show that it is largely inevitable and that a certain amount of variation could be seen as a desirable part of the institution of medical research.

Consensus↗
PubMed2003

Drug-related mortality and fatal overdose risk: pilot cohort study of heroin users recruited from specialist drug treatment sites in London.

Fatal overdose and drug-related mortality are key harms associated with heroin use, especially injecting drug use (IDU), and are a significant contribution to premature mortality among young adults. Routine mortality statistics tend to underreport the number of overdose deaths and do not reflect the wider causes of death associated with heroin use. Cohort studies could provide evidence for interpreting trends in routine mortality statistics and monitoring the effectiveness of strategies that aim to reduce drug-related deaths. We aimed to conduct a retrospective mortality cohort study of heroin users recruited from an anonymous reporting system from specialist drug clinics. Our focus was to test whether (1). specialist agencies would agree to participate with a mortality cohort study, (2). a sample could be recruited to achieve credible estimates of the mortality rate, and (3). ethical considerations could be met. In total, 881 heroin users were recruited from 15 specialist drug agencies. The overall mortality rate of the cohort of heroin users was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.2) per 100 person-years. Mortality was higher among males, heroin users older than 30 years, and injectors, but not significantly higher after adjustment in a Cox proportional hazard model. Among the 33 deaths, 17 (52%) were certified from a heroin/methadone or opiate overdose, 4 (12%) from drug misuse, 4 (12%) unascertained, and 8 (24%) unrelated to acute toxic effects of drug use. Overall, the overdose mortality rate was estimated to be at least 1.0 per 100 person-years. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was 17 times higher for female and male heroin users in the cohort compared to mortality in the non-heroin-using London population aged 15-59 years. The pilot study showed that these studies are feasible and ethical, and that specialist drug agencies could have a vital role to play in the monitoring of drug-related mortality.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application.

There is now widespread acknowledgement of the absence of a sound evidence base underpinning many of the decisions made in primary care. Randomised controlled trials represent the methodology of choicefor determining efficacy and effectiveness of interventions, yet researchers working in primary care have been reluctant to use intervention studies, favouring observational study designs. Unfamiliarity with the different trial designs now available, and the relative advantages and disadvantages conferred by each, may be one factor contributing to this paradox. In this paper, we consider the principal trial designs available to primary care researchers, discussing the contexts in which a particular design may prove most useful. This information will, we hope, also prove useful to primary care clinicians attempting to interpret trial findings.

Bias↗
PubMed1999

Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice.

It is widely maintained that a clinical trial is ethical only if some form of equipoise between the treatments being compared obtains. To be in equipoise between two treatments A and B is to be cognitively indifferent between the statement 'A is strictly more effective than B' and its negation. It is natural to claim that equipoise regarding A and B is necessary for randomised assignment to treatments A and B to be beneficent and non-maleficent and is sufficient for such an assignment to be fair. Cashing this out precisely is difficult, and various forms of equipoise have been discussed which consider whose equipoise is relevant to the decision. This is to make judgement of equipoise something to be managed socially, while its prima facie significance is supposedly cognitive. Recent reconstructions of equipoise-like concepts in epistemology give clues about how to understand equipoise cognitively. In this paper I examine some of this work and discuss how successful it has been. I suggest that while this work is promising, it still has far to go, and that while equipoise remains the best theory we have of the cognitive justification for clinical trials, it is nonetheless incoherent.

Decision Making↗