China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Pilot Grants
Published in Lisa Chasan-Taber, Writing Grant Proposals in Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine, and Biostatistics, 2022
Objective measures are also subject to error. Examples of objective outcome measures can include biomarkers, medical records, and monitors. Each of these measures, although termed objective, faces potential errors as described below.
Building on intellectual traditions
Published in John A. Bilorusky, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research, 2021
Much of the value in what Kuhn says can be learned from some questions implied by his book, not just what he states explicitly. What does this suggest to us about the difference between “good” and “not so good” research and inquiry? What do the terms “subjective” and “objective” mean? How can these terms be useful ideas, and how are they oftentimes misleading and based on faulty assumptions about the realities of science performed by real human beings, with all the strengths and limitations that we may bring to our inquiries? The story Kuhn has told us is both good news and bad news for the uses and limitations of theories and paradigms of practice to guide our research and our actions. The good news is that by agreeing on a paradigm or accepted point of view, a community of professionals or scholars have their attention focused on issues, facts, questions, and problems that are often helpful and that they might not otherwise notice. A medical doctor is trained to look for symptoms of certain ailments, for example, and in many ways, this is a good thing. At the same time, the bad news is that the paradigm used by medical doctors may lead to their overlooking certain symptoms, or failing to look for some potentially useful information, not acknowledged by the current professional paradigm of medical practice. Social workers, educators, community activists, policy makers, and people in all fields should be aware of both the “good news” and “bad news” about their use of the prevailing theories, methods of practice, or paradigms.
Introduction
Published in Roger Ellis, Elaine Hogard, Professional Identity in the Caring Professions, 2020
We are using ‘measurement’ as both a general and a would-be precise term. Generally, I would suggest that measurement begins with reliable and objective recognition. Recognition then has to be captured in description. Objective and reliable description may lead to quantification and then true measurement.
Development of a systematic multidisciplinary clinical and teaching model for the palliative approaches in patients with severe lung failure
Published in European Clinical Respiratory Journal, 2022
Kristoffer Marsaa, Janni Mendahl, Steen Nielsen, Lotte Mørk, Per Sjøgren, Geana Paula Kurita
Two types of knowledge: Clinical judgments must be based on a combination of objective and the intuitive knowledges. Objective knowledge is what we can measure and what we can describe with numbers, such as vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, temperature, etc.). Alongside the objective knowledge is the intuitive knowledge [32]. In our model intuitive knowledge is understood as interindividual relationship of interpreted feelings, perceptions, and compassion. Most HPs are trained to use the objective knowledge as it is feasible to pass on in documentation and easy to evaluate [33]. However, intuitive knowledge is also important. In the intuitive knowledge is concrete, clinically worthy, as shown in a study where phlebotomists eyeball triages, that is, their intuitive assessment, were superior to standard triage models in predict short-term mortality in emergency departments patients [34].
Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of alcohol use disorder
Published in The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2021
Cole Verble, Marysa Cloeter, Ryan Ottwell, Wade Arthur, Micah Hartwell, Branden Carr, Kelly Dunn, Jana Baker, Drew N. Wright, Meghan Sealey, Lan Zhu, Matt Vassar
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the gold standard of research evidence informing clinical practice guidelines. Essentially, researchers take a systematic approach to collating relevant studies on a particular treatment or topic and then provide a high-level overview and synthesis of the findings. To illustrate their importance, two systematic reviews issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (9,10) provided the overarching framework for the Practice Guideline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Patients with Alcohol Use Disorder developed by the American Psychiatric Association (8). Considering systematic reviews often inform clinical practices and influence patient outcomes, it is imperative that they are objective and reliable. In addition, half of scientific articles found in PubMed are pay-to-read leading to some physicians relying on the information provided solely in the abstracts of systematic reviews to help aid in their clinical decision-making (11,12). Thus, these studies and their abstracts must be methodologically sound; provide reliable, robust results; and be free of subjectivity.
Management of Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction in Adults after Spinal Cord Injury
Published in The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 2021
Jeffery Johns, Klaus Krogh, Gianna M. Rodriguez, Janice Eng, Emily Haller, Malorie Heinen, Rafferty Laredo, Walter Longo, Wilda Montero-Colon, Catherine S. Wilson, Mark Korsten
The SCIRE methodology team assessed the quality of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The GRADE approach provides a system for rating the strength and quality of evidence that is intended to be objective, transparent, and comprehensive, and it is increasingly the standard by which clinical guidelines are constructed.2 The approach incorporates 4 key domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision of the evidence. For example, the body of evidence in a particular area would be highly rated if there were multiple studies with control groups, the results were in a consistent direction, the outcomes offered direct measurement of the area of interest, and these outcomes were reported consistently.