Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38745599›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2022

Certainty and systematicity of practice-derived evidence matter for its relative importance in professional decision-making: Survey results on the role of proven experience in Swedish medicine, nursing, OT, dentistry, and dental hygiene.

Johannes Persson, Annika Wallin, Barry Dewitt, Lena Wahlberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Johannes PerssonDepartment of Philosophy. Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Annika WallinLund University Cognitive Science, Department of Philosophy, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Barry DewittDepartment of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, US, and Division of Medical Ethics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lena WahlbergDepartment of Law, Faculty of Law, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: High-quality healthcare decisions need to balance input from science and clinical practice. When two sources of evidence - such as scientific and practice-derived evidence - are compared, integrated, or need to stand-in for one another, they need to be comparable on similar dimensions. Since 1891, Swedish physicians have been operating under a legal requirement to base their healthcare decisions on science and "proven experience" (approximately clinical expertise), and today all healthcare personnel in Sweden fall under this legal requirement. Objectives: We investigated the dynamics between these two kinds of evidence with respect to importance, systematicity, and certainty by studying Swedish healthcare professionals. Design: Survey to professionals; document studies of political discourse. Method: In this study, a survey was sent to simple random samples of Swedish professionals in medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, dentistry, and dental hygiene, asking about the roles of science and proven experience in medical decision making. Outcome measures were how important, certain, and systematic science and proven experience are for successful medical decision making. Participants: The sampling frame was each profession's most recent occupational registry accessed by the Swedish federal statistical agency. 3500 surveys were distributed. 1626 surveys were returned. 26 participants were removed prior to analysis (exclusion criteria: more than one profession indicated, missing certificate, and mistake in stratum). The final sample consisted of 295 physicians, 300 nurses, 365 occupational therapists, 339 dentists, and 301 hygienists. 162 responses in questions used as variables in the analyses were either uninterpretable or empty; those were replaced with the modal response for a given participant's profession on a given question. Results: In the study, proven experience's perceived importance for clinical decision making is positively correlated with its certainty and systematicity, and an increased certainty and systematicity is positively correlated with a diminished difference in importance between science and proven experience for almost all professions surveyed in this study. Conclusions: Proven experience has an evidentiary role in clinical decision making, and this role depends in part on its certainty and systematicity. Notably, this makes the EBM-based perspective that practice-derived knowledge is primarily of implementation value less plausible.

Indexed as

Clinical expertiseClinical judgmentEpistemologyEvidence-based medicineMedical decision-makingProven experienceSweden

Identifiers

PMID38745599
PMCPMC11080282

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.