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 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
We recently stumbled across this all-time classic that Genuine Evaluation readers may well appreciate! Smith, G. C. S. & Pell, J. P. (2003, December). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 327, 1459-1461.
Read the whole post –> The Friday Funny: A review of RCTs on parachute use
Greetings, genuwiners! Thought I’d toss a small puzzle into the stream of discussions to start my visit.
Ideally, almost all program evaluations need to include a long term follow up, but almost none of the clients can wait for long-term results, so we rarely have the chance to provide one of these. This means
Read the whole post –> Long-term effects; what to do with them and without them