Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17120113›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2007

The practice of health care: wisdom as a model.

Ricca Edmondson, Jane Pearce

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Wisdom in clinical reasoning and medical practice.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2009
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ricca EdmondsonPolitical Science and Sociology, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. Ricca.Edmondson@nuigalway.ie
Jane Pearce

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reasoning and judgement in health care entail complex responses to problems whose demands typically derive from several areas of specialism at once. We argue that current evidence- or value-based models of health care reasoning, despite their virtues, are insufficient to account for responses to such problems exhaustively. At the same time, we offer reasons for contending that health professionals in fact engage in forms of reasoning of a kind described for millennia under the concept of wisdom. Wisdom traditions refer to forms of deliberation which combine knowledge, reflection and life experience with social, emotional and ethical capacities. Wisdom is key in dealing with problems which are vital to human affairs but lack prescribed solutions. Uncertainty and fluidity must be tolerated in seeking to resolve them. We illustrate the application of wisdom using cases in psychiatry, where non-technical aspects of problems are often prominent and require more systematic analysis than conventional approaches offer, but we argue that our thesis applies throughout the health care field. We argue for the relevance of a threefold model of reasoning to modern health care situations in which multifaceted teamwork and complex settings demand wise judgement. A model based on practical wisdom highlights a triadic process with features activating capacities of the self (professional), other (patient and/or carers and/or colleagues) and aspects of the problem itself. Such a framework could be used to develop current approaches to health care based on case review and experiential learning.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesEvidence-Based MedicinePhilosophy, MedicalDecision MakingHippocratic OathHumansInterprofessional RelationsJudgmentMental DisordersPatient RightsProblem-Based LearningProfessional-Family RelationsProfessional-Patient RelationsPsychiatry

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.