Grootste objectieve website voor
 complementaire en alternatieve geneeskunde
Beoordeling
Definities
Maatschappij
Kosteneffectief
Science
Onderwijs
Student
Politiek
Gezondheidscolumn
Ziekten
AIDS en HIV
Alzheimer
Angst en Depressie
Artrose
Astma
Beroerte
Burnout
Candida
Cholesterol
Chronische pijn
Crohn
Depressie
Diabetes
Dystrofie
Eczeem
Fibromyalgie
Hartproblemen
Hoge Bloeddruk
Hooikoorts
Kanker
Migraine en hoofdpijn
Multiple sclerose
Parkinson
Prostaatvergroting
Reuma
RSI
Slaapproblemen
Vermoeidheid
Vrouwenziekten
Meest gebruikte behandelwijzen
Acupunctuur
Manuele Therapie
Supplementen
Homeopathie
Fytotherapie
Natuurgeneeswijze
Antroposofie
Andere behandelwijzen
Energetisch
Bioresonantie
Traditioneel
Biologisch
Manipulaties
Lichaamswerk
Meditatie
Hypnose
Yoga
Qigong
Biofeedback
Overige
Boekbespreking
Spreuken
Tegengif
Documenten
TV programma Uitgedokterd
Engish Articles
DISCLAIMER
Home arrow Engish Articles arrow Forget about Evidence Based Medicine, listen first to the patients
Forget about Evidence Based Medicine, listen first to the patients
Share |
It happens often that what patients perceive as most effective treatments, usually doctors see as  less important, and what doctors see as most important, based on our evidence based medicine, patients see as undesirable and less effective! Oeps! This is not just a blurp from a doctor of alternative medicine. These are data from a survey among hundreds of spinal cord injury patients, conducted by experts from a world famous institute, the Dutch Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience and Centre of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, from the University Medical Centre in Utrecht. Open your eyes and behold! What the doctor prescribes is NOT what the patient wants.

Heutink M, et al. (2011) open our eyes by showing us that patients suffering from spinal cord lesions want other things then doctors prescribe.[1] Treatments that were most often perceived by the patients themselves as effective were: acupuncture, magnetizing, cannabis and alcohol, physiotherapy, exercise, massage (therapy) and relaxation. And be aware, TENS, ultrasound and antidepressants were least often perceived as effective. Is this not an absolute eye opener?

Antidepressants with their NNT of 3 based on clinical trials are seen as most effective non surgical interventions, though patients perceive these as the least effective. And therapies we would regard as probably not effective, such as acupuncture and physiotherapy are perceived by the patients as cost effective. Just as alcohol and cannabis by the way...

The researchers conducted a survey among 575 persons with spinal cord injury. The main outcome measures were the pain intensity score of the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire, past and current pain treatments, and perceived effectiveness of current pain treatments. The Response rate was impressive for a survey conducted via post: 49% (279 persons) and 215 respondents (77.1%) had neuropathic pain. Most respondents with pain (62.8%) reported more than one pain type, of which neuropathic pain was most frequently reported (69.3%). Of this group with neuropathic pain, 63.8% was currently involved in some kind of treatment, but nevertheless high levels of pain (mean 52.8 on a 0-100 scale) were reported.

Now the results. Massage (therapy)/relaxation (training), anticonvulsants, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most often used treatments. The current treatments that were most often perceived as effective were acupuncture/magnetizing, cannabis/alcohol, physiotherapy and exercise, and massage (therapy)/relaxation (training). TENS/ultrasound and antidepressants were least often perceived as effective.

RCT: an obsolete paradigm

So, what do we learn? If doctors are serious with putting the patients central in their system, they should start listening to them. If patients perceive acupuncture and cannabis as most effective and antidepressants (neuropathic pain medication) as least effective, doctors should not start the therapy with amitriptyline. Furthermore, doctors need to understand that the basic philosophy of their clinical trials is paternalistic. The doctor knows what is good for you. Most of the time the patient's preference is not honored, nor is the patient usually aware of what kind of treatment he will receive. Is this not clearly totally obsolete, this paradigm? The patient is indeed the only person who can experience the effect of the treatment. So when a patient considers a certain therapy as most effective, doctors should acknowledge this, even when the treatment has not been scientifically evaluated yet in clinical trials. Thus, the doctor should not only take these treatments into account which have been scientifically evaluated thoroughly, but he should also take every treatment seriously in case the patient indicates it as most effective. OK, let us start implementing this knowledge.

Referenties

[1]: Heutink M, Post MW, Wollaars MM, van Asbeck FW. | Chronic spinal cord injury pain: pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and treatment effectiveness. | Disabil Rehabil. | 2011;33(5):433-40. Epub 2010 Aug 9.

Share |

Commentaar
Schrijf commentaar
Naam:
Onderwerp:
Security Image

Powered by JoomlaCommentCopyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.Homepage: http://cavo.co.nr/

Gokil - YAJnBsdToVRDrmzRcpO 24-02-2012 09:49:34
In the two year Health Coordinator Pilot we wroekd closely with one front-line staff in each of six BC practices to systematically deliver clinical tobacco intervention. We offered, secondarily, brief clinical intervention for depression, at-risk alcohol use, and physical inactitivy. We measured baseline and one year follow-up levels of documentation of six intervention components: smoking-status chart-reminder, advice to quit, self-management plan (including stop-smoking medication), target date, referral to community program, and follow-up date. We supported the ?health coordinators? with training, clinical materials, payment (a day a week), and weekly telephone conference calls. At follow-up all were increased (statistically) significantly. So we have very tangible evidence of change for the six components of CTI (and less for the other three risks). Further, the front-line staff, the patients, and the physicians all valued what the ?health coordinators? were doing. What is important in this work is that it shows that (selected) front-line staff can make a very substantial difference in the delivery of clinical preventive services.
Marc 19-02-2012 16:21:14
Hello,
I'd like to refere to this article but I need resources to do so.
Who wrote this article and when is this written?
Jorja - wLWyOIKEebGGr 19-01-2012 03:47:46
I am totally wowed and prpeaerd to take the next step now.
Kayleen - JubZAltGcATYS 18-01-2012 01:05:18
Appreciation for this iofnmration is over 9000-thank you!
 
© Copyright 2012 Stichting voor innovatief onderzoek en onderwijs
van complementaire behandelwijzen. Alle rechten voorbehouden.