Not at issue
| dc.contributor.author | Adams, Clive E. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-09-20T15:56:00Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-09-20T15:56:00Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Adams, C. E. (2012). Not at issue. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38 (2), pp.225-226. | |
| dc.identifier.other | 10.1093/schbul/sbr187 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/10842 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Comment on the article by Patrick McGorry (see record 2012-06962-004). There is lots of truth in what Professor McGorry says. Policymakers often have to (and should) go well beyond evidence as presented in a review of trials or, for that matter, reviews of other methodologies. They have to consider not only best evidence but also resource, public requirements, and opinion of experts to come to some workable decision—or defer. Cochrane reviewers try to use objective methodology to summarize best evidence. This is an attempt at fairly summarizing fair tests of different treatment approaches—even complex interventions for complex conditions. The Cochrane review tries to summarize these (largely) trial-derived data. There has long been the concern that Cochrane reviews are used to fuel those who wish to pursue policy dictation by numbers—a practice no better than dictation by preformed opinion. There is a place for both the informed expert opinion and scientific appraisal of best evidence—with a clear workable definition of the latter. Policymakers need both perspectives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) | |
| dc.description.uri | https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/schbul/sbr187 | |
| dc.subject | Health policy | |
| dc.subject | Health services research | |
| dc.title | Not at issue | |
| dc.type | Commentary | |
| html.description.abstract | Comment on the article by Patrick McGorry (see record 2012-06962-004). There is lots of truth in what Professor McGorry says. Policymakers often have to (and should) go well beyond evidence as presented in a review of trials or, for that matter, reviews of other methodologies. They have to consider not only best evidence but also resource, public requirements, and opinion of experts to come to some workable decision—or defer. Cochrane reviewers try to use objective methodology to summarize best evidence. This is an attempt at fairly summarizing fair tests of different treatment approaches—even complex interventions for complex conditions. The Cochrane review tries to summarize these (largely) trial-derived data. There has long been the concern that Cochrane reviews are used to fuel those who wish to pursue policy dictation by numbers—a practice no better than dictation by preformed opinion. There is a place for both the informed expert opinion and scientific appraisal of best evidence—with a clear workable definition of the latter. Policymakers need both perspectives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) |