PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12480621

Evidence-based medicine and informed consent.

Abstract

The author applauds the paradigm shift in medical education and practice toward evidence-based medicine. However, he maintains that an important part of this shift should be a careful consideration of its implications for the physician's legal and ethical obligations to sufficiently inform patients about the nature of proposed medical interventions. Should the traditional informed-consent requirement be expanded to mandate that the physician also disclose the basis or reasons for the physician's expectations about likely benefits? Particularly, should the physician have to reveal whether a recommendation is based on scientifically analyzed evidence of efficacy or instead on the sorts of factors (custom, habit, gut instinct, personal impressions and experience) that have influenced much of medical practice in the past in the absence of relevant evidence? What should the physician tell the patient when the evidence base regarding a specific intervention is just beginning to be developed, is ambiguous, or is engulfed in controversy? The author examines the implications of these questions, and cautions that while the trend to evidence-based medicine is commendable, careful consideration of patients' proper roles regarding evidence-based medicine-as both recipients of and decision makers about their own proven and unproven forms of medical care-should not be overlooked.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marshall B Kapp. 2002. Evidence-based medicine and informed consent.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200212000-00007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗