Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23414247›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2013

Evidence-based medicine and values-based medicine: partners in clinical education as well as in clinical practice.

Ed Peile

Open access · goldAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Value Framework Governing Iran's Health System Policy: A Practical Gap.International journal of preventive medicine · 2022
    Article
  6. Model for Value-based Policy-making in Health Systems.International journal of preventive medicine · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ed PeileWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. Ed.Peile@warwick.ac.uk
University of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The best clinical decisions are based on both evidence and values in what is known as the 'two-feet principle'. Anecdotally, educationalists find teaching clinicians to become more evidence based is relatively simple in comparison to encouraging them to become more values based. One reason is likely to be the importance of values awareness. As values-based practice is premised on a mutual respect for the diversity of values, clinicians need to develop the skills to ascertain patient values and to get in touch with their own beliefs and preferences in order to understand those at play in any consultation. Only then can shared decision-making processes take place within a shared framework of values. In a research article published in BMC Medicine, Altamirano-Bustamante and colleagues highlight difficulties that clinicians face in getting in touch with their own values. Despite finding that healthcare personnel's core values were honesty and respect, autonomy was initially low ranked by participants. One significant aspect of this work is that this group has demonstrated that the extent to which clinicians value 'autonomy' and 'openness to change' can both be positively influenced by well designed education.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelEducation, Medical, ContinuingEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansMaleValue-Based Purchasing

Identifiers

PMID23414247
PMCPMC3626674
OpenAlexW2097364971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.