Dataset Information

Causal Evidence and Dispositions in Medicine and Public Health.

ABSTRACT: Since the introduction of evidence-based medicine, there have been discussions about the epistemic primacy of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for establishing causality in medicine and public health. A growing movement within philosophy of science calls instead for evidential pluralism: that we need more than one single method to investigate health outcomes. How should such evidential pluralism look in practice? How useful are the various methods available for causal inquiry? Further, how should different types of causal evidence be evaluated? This paper proposes a constructive answer and introduces a framework aimed at supporting scientists in developing appropriate methodological approaches for exploring causality. We start from the philosophical tradition that highlights intrinsic properties (dispositions, causal powers or capacities) as essential features of causality. This abstract idea has wide methodological implications. The paper explains how different methods, such as lab experiments, case studies, N-of-1 trials, case control studies, cohort studies, RCTs and patient narratives, all have some strengths and some limitations for picking out intrinsic causal properties. We explain why considering philosophy of causality is crucial for evaluating causality in the health sciences. In our proposal, we combine the various methods in a temporal process, which could then take us from an observed phenomenon (e.g., a correlation) to a causal hypothesis and, finally, to improved theoretical knowledge.

SUBMITTER: Rocca E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7142708 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Causal Evidence and Dispositions in Medicine and Public Health.

Rocca Elena E Anjum Rani Lill RL

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200311 6

Since the introduction of evidence-based medicine, there have been discussions about the epistemic primacy of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for establishing causality in medicine and public health. A growing movement within philosophy of science calls instead for evidential pluralism: that we need more than one single method to investigate health outcomes. How should such evidential pluralism look in practice? How useful are the various methods available for causal inquiry? Further, how sh ...[more]

PMID: 32168791

Similar Datasets

Project description:South Africa (SA) is reforming its health system in preparation for an anticipated national health insurance (NHI) scheme that aims to improve the delivery of affordable, equitable, accessible health care. Public health (PH) language is explicit in the policy and skilled PH professionals would be expected to play a key role in its implementation. In South Africa, training of doctors as Public Health Medicine (PHM) specialists is funded by the state, yet there are few positions for PHM specialists in the health services. We explored stakeholders' perspectives about this absence, and their views on PHM specialist' roles and contribution in an era of health reform. A qualitative study was conducted in 2012-13, using in-depth interviews with thematic analysis, which elicited perspectives of 31 key stakeholders nationally reflecting diverse employer and institutional backgrounds. While some were surprised by the absence of PH professionals in SA's health system, most agreed the reason was due to factors internal to the profession, such as its low profile and uncertain identity. External factors such as legislation and political preferences for health managers impacted on the employment of PH professionals. However, given the competencies required to implement an ambitious restructuring of the health sector, all believed that PH and PHM personnel were vital. In view of the health system's dominant curative orientation, embedding PH personnel in the services should ensure that health protection, promotion and prevention strategies will inform health priorities. This study, the first known from a low and middle-income country, contributes to the international literature about the identity and roles of PHM physicians, who are versatile professionals with broad skills-sets. In SA, through consultation with health sector employers about potential roles, curricular redesign and trainee recruitment, PHM can graduate fit-for-purpose specialists to work in a range of institutions to address health system reform.

Project description:BackgroundSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a high demand for rapid evidence syntheses to answer urgent public health questions. This article provides an overview of different types of reviews for public health questions and a synthesis of existing recommendations for the preparation of reviews. The aim is to support the planning of one's own review and the critical evaluation of published reviews.MethodsThe basis of this summary is an extensive search for guidelines and recommendations for different review types. Furthermore, internal journal clubs were held to determine knowledge needs and to critically discuss the various review types. For results dissemination, fact sheets were developed for the individual review types including the most important information, prerequisites and work steps, as well as a decision tree for identifying the appropriate review type for the respective question.ResultsOf the review types identified, Systematic, Rapid, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews were considered in more detail because they are particularly relevant to public health issues. Together with scoping and umbrella reviews, systematic reviews have the highest resource requirements due to the demands for extensive, systematic evidence synthesis and reproducibility. Rapid methods can accelerate the review process, for example by a very narrowly formulated question, a limited literature search, or the execution of certain steps by one instead of two persons.DiscussionSystematic Reviews may be considered as the gold standard, but they were developed primarily for clinical questions relating to interventions. Instead, this article was focused on review types that consider the diversity of questions as well as the predominant use of quantitative methods in the field of public health. The fact sheets developed and the decision tree should enable low-threshold access to reviews while linking the perspectives of research and resource planning. They complement existing guidelines and recommendations.ConclusionTo answer the diverse spectrum of public health questions, various types of reviews with various requirements and approaches are available. Given this diversity, a systematic introduction can be helpful for researchers planning or assessing a review.

Dataset Information

Causal Evidence and Dispositions in Medicine and Public Health.

Publications

Causal Evidence and Dispositions in Medicine and Public Health.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets