A warm and informative welcome this morning from the indigenous Kaurna people was followed by a brilliant keynote from Dr. Trisha Greenhalgh, Professor of Primary Health Care and Director of Healthcare Innovation and Policy Unit in the Centre for Health Sciences at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. Trisha talked about “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of evaluating e-health programmes in Britain. She had strong words about “gagging order” clauses in evaluation contracts, as well as government client uses of the “5 D’s” in response to evaluation findings they don’t care for: deny, denigrate, dismiss, distract, distort.
Read the whole post –> AES keynote Prof Trisha Greenhalgh slams govt leaders’ notions of “scientific” evaluation
In the last few days before the Australian federal election, a curious $5million advertising campaign has been launched which claims to be advocating evidence-based policy but does nothing of the kind. .
Read the whole post –> How much evidence is needed for policy?
Why can’t newspapers be more critical when they report findings from research and evaluation, and provide easy links to more details?
A new study by researchers from Australia’s major government research instution (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – CSIRO) , reviewing the health effects of eating apples, has received the usual standard
Read the whole post –> An apple a day – or cherry-picking the studies?
In the medical profession in particular, there are some very rigid beliefs about what constitutes good enough “evidence of effectiveness” to justify offering, recommending, allowing patients to try, or even just not vehemently opposing a particular type of treatment for a patient. There are some glimmers of hope in other sectors (e.g. in the Best Evidence Synthesis work here in New Zealand). But there are still three areas where there are very serious challenges in building a credible evidence base given the kinds of constraints and realities surrounding them. They are: (1) cutting-edge treatments; (2) treatments that are by their very nature tailored/individualized rather than standardized across patients or populations; and (3) learning what works for small sub-populations
Read the whole post –> What constitutes “evidence”? Implications for cutting-edge, tailored treatments, and small sub-populations