1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
The Fable known as The PACE Trial
Graham, Janelle and Bob, have once again excelled themselves with their latest take on the 'poisoned apple' that was the PACE Trial...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

BMJ: Let the patient revoloution begin (lots of stuff like this about at the moment, here's a eg).

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Esther12, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,152
    Likes:
    5,060
    It's meant to be behind a paywall... but so what. It would be funny to have them complain about their article on patient engagement being made available to patients.

    I find all this stuff pretty funny given the way in which the BMJ has treated CFS patients critical of the misleading claims made about the efficacy of CBT for CFS (the BMJ reported the result from the PACE trial by claiming "Less than a third of patients were cured by either treatment (30% (44/148) after CBT..." they then went on to complain about militant patient anger yadda-yadda, without ever issuing a correction).

    http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2614
    Let the patient revolution begin
    BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2614 (Published 14 May 2013)
    Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2614


    1. Tessa Richards, analysis editor1,
    2. Victor M Montori, professor2,
    3. Fiona Godlee, editor in chief1,
    4. Peter Lapsley, patient editor1,
    5. Dave Paul, secretary of the patient advisory group 2
    Author Affiliations
    1. trichards@bmj.com
    Patients can improve healthcare: it’s time to take partnership seriously
    A hundred years ago George Bernard Shaw lambasted the medical profession as a conspiracy against the laity.1 Today, disease and doctor centric health systems that are costly, wasteful, fragmented, and too often uncaring are provoking similar ire.2
    Despite the best intentions and undoubted skill of many who work within healthcare, access to care, and its quality, vary markedly, and most people in rich countries access a confusing smorgasbord of tests and treatments whose merits are hyped and harms underplayed.3 Patients lack information on practice variation, the effectiveness of their care, and the extent of medical uncertainty. Practice is informed by an incomplete research base bedevilled with selection and reporting bias,4 and at worst fraud. The preservation of institutional bureaucracies, as well as professional and commercial vested interests, have consistently trumped the interests of patients. The healthcare industrial complex stands accused of losing its moral purpose.5 This corruption in the mission of healthcare requires urgent correction. And how better to do this than to enlist the help of those whom the system is supposed to serve—patients? Far more than clinicians, patients understand the realities of their condition, the impact of disease and its treatment on their lives, and how services could be better designed to help them.6
    Clinicians and patients need to work in partnership if we are to improve healthcare and challenge deeply ingrained practices and behaviours. Doing this won't be easy for either side after eons of paternalism, and some patients may continue to prefer their doctor to take the lead role in decision making. But good examples are showing the way. The Choosing Wisely initiative in the US (www.choosingwisely.org/) brings patients and doctors together to identify and reduce the use of unwarranted and ineffective interventions. Discussion groups of patients, carers, and clinicians led by the James Lind Alliance in the United Kingdom, and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute in the United States, are shedding light on the mismatch between the questions that patients and doctors want answers to and the ones that researchers are investigating. Joint discussions have helped build a database of uncertainties about the effects of treatment (www.library.nhs.uk/duets/).
    Patients and doctors are also collaborating to design new services and information systems.7 Leaders in innovative partnership include ReshapeHealth (www.radboudreshapecenter.com), which is pioneering patient led and “crowdfunded” research. A growing number of healthcare organisations are giving patients access to, and in some cases control over, their medical records.7 At the Mayo Clinic a free app gives patients full access to their medical notes, pathology reports, and radiology reports; and because a shift in power depends on establishing a common lexicon, work is under way to reduce the medical jargon in these resources. There are guides on why and how to engage with patients (http://epatientdave.com/let-patients-help/),8 and some patients are already acting as “sherpas” to promote joint working,6 including members of the participatory medicine movement (http://participatorymedicine.org).
    Online patient communities where patients meet, talk, support, inform, and coach each other are empowering patients (although it is important to note who sponsors them).9 They also provide a rich and as yet largely untapped learning resource for health professionals. Examples include healthunlocked.com, healthtalkonline, rawarrior.com, and cancergrace.org (www.bmj.com/podcast/2013/04/29/dying-patients-hospital-e-patients-online). There are salutary lessons in the gulf between conversations in the clinic and the concerns patients share with their peers.
    Advocacy for patient engagement in the US, UK, mainland Europe, and well beyond is driven largely by the belief, backed by some evidence, that engaging patients will reduce healthcare costs through the avoidance of unnecessary investigation and treatment. Patient engagement is seen as a way to help health systems become sustainable. Some have argued that it is the “blockbuster drug of the century” and will deliver equivalent dividends.10
    But partnering with patients must be seen as far more than the latest route to healthcare efficiency. It’s about a fundamental shift in the power structure in healthcare and a renewed focus on the core mission of health systems. We need to accept that expertise in health and illness lies outside as much as inside medical circles and that working alongside patients, their families, local communities, civil society organisations, and experts in other sectors is essential to improving health. Revolution requires joint participation in the design and implementation of new policies, systems, and services, as well as in clinical decision making.
    Much remains to be discovered, evaluated, and implemented to achieve meaningful partnership with patients. There is also a need to embed shared decision making, based on individual patients’ preferences11 and goals,12 into routine practice. At an open meeting in June in Peru (www.isdm2013.org), which can be followed through social media, the shared decision making community will further global debate on the latest thinking and research.
    For its part the BMJ is stepping up its commitment to patient partnership. We already have an online collection of articles on shared decision making and a growing library of patient journey articles.13 Now we want to develop a strategy for patient partnership that will be reflected across the entire journal. We plan to establish a panel of patients and clinicians to help us with this work and will report back on our progress.
    It has been said that healthcare won’t get better until patients play a leading role in fixing it.14 We agree and look forward to helping drive the patient revolution on.
    Notes

    Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2614
    Footnotes

    • Personal view, doi:10.1136/bmj.f2901
    • Analysis, doi:10.1136/bmj.f2510
    • Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: FG, TR, PL, and DP have none; VMM is chair of the organising committee, 7th International Shared Decision Making Conference, Lima, Peru.
    • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
    References


    1. Shaw GB. The doctor’s dilemma: a tragedy. 1st World Library.

    2. Fung B. How the US health-care system wastes $750 billion annually. Atlantic2012 Sept 7. www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-us-health-care-system-wastes750-billionannually/262106/.

    3. Moynihan R, Glaziou P, Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Santa J, Godlee G. Winding back the harms of too much medicine. BMJ2013;346:f1271.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    4. Chalmers I, Glaziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet2009;374;86-9.

    5. Smythe C. NHS urged to find its “moral purpose.” Times 2013 March 8. www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3708313.ece.

    6. Young K. Doctors’ understanding of rheumatoid disease does not align with patients’ experiences. BMJ2013;346:f2901.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    7. Davies P. Should patients be able to control their own records? BMJ 2012;345:e4905.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    8. Coulter A. Engaging patients in healthcare. Open University Press, 2011.

    9. De Bronkart D. How the e-patient community helped save my life. BMJ2013;346:f1990.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    10. Dentzer S. Rx for the “blockbuster drug” of patient engagement. Health Affairs2013;32:202.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    11. Mulley A, Trimble C, Elwy G. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patient preferences matter. BMJ2012;345:e6572.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    12. Roland M, Paddison C. Better management of patients with multimorbidity. BMJ 2013;346:f2510.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    13. Lapsley P. Lessons from patient journeys. BMJ2013;346:f1988.
      Check LinkSource for full textFREE Full Text

    14. Hadler NM. The citizen patient. University of North Carolina Press, 2013.
  2. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    Wow - thanks Esther - is the whole culture of "we know best and you know nothing" finally on the way out now - hooray. Their own failures have been making headline news for some time.
  3. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes:
    4,096
    Every time I read articles on this topic, a small part of me expects to see "except for those pesky CFS patients" or "input from CFS patients is only desired if they agree with our opinions and do not in any way challenge them".

    Somewhat off-topic ... BMJ is in the UK not USA, but I just wanted to quote this anyway:

    "The long-standing and abundantly attested historical associations of the caduceus with commerce, theft, deception, and death are considered by many to be inappropriate in a symbol used by those engaged in the healing arts."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus#Misuse_as_symbol_of_medicine

    Looking at the American medical profession, some of those characteristics are a perfect representation.
    Jarod, Esther12 and Valentijn like this.
  4. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    Bump - this is a change of simply the culture of the whole of medicine.....that's your doc, my doc round the corner who we have carried for too long.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,152
    Likes:
    5,060
    No need for them to draw other's attention to it biophile - actions speak louder than words!


    The above article reminded me that we've recently had White in the BMJ pretending that he's all for 'AllTrials', which requires researchers to release data in the manner laid out in their protocol (while ignoring his refusal to do so: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pace_trial_recovery_rates_and_po ) and then presenting pesky patients making FOI requests as a threat to patient confidentiality.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3379

    biophile, peggy-sue and Valentijn like this.
  6. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    Bump, bump Esther.
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,152
    Likes:
    5,060
    Pleased to see you're liking it Enid. There have been quite a lot of articles like this recently. It seems like they're coming to terms with the fact that they cannot keep sweeping the problems with the way patients are treated under the carpet.
    leela, Sasha and biophile like this.
  8. Firestormm

    Firestormm Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,822
    Likes:
    5,951
    Cornwall England
    Jeepers Esther that's an awful lot of folk to produce a relatively short article - don't you think:

    Cripes :eek:
  9. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,266
    Likes:
    3,807
    Monmouth, UK
    I would have thought that the more that explicitly endorse this, the better.

    This article is now open access, after I contacted the BMJ re Esther12's point that patients couldn't read their piece on patient engagement - and they listened:

    Let the patient revolution begin | BMJ

    biophile, Svenja, SOC and 6 others like this.
  10. xchocoholic

    xchocoholic Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes:
    1,206
    Florida
    Interesting. I'd say the revolution has been going on since
    patients discovered the internet. Esp the health forums.

    If i understand this article they're just catching on.
    Are they creating a committee to deal with it ?

    Tc ... x
    Firestormm and Bob like this.
  11. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,266
    Likes:
    3,807
    Monmouth, UK
    I've just read those MRC guidleines and couldn't find a reference to specifically only considering release to 'bona fide researchers working for bona fide research organisations', though I did find this:
    Perhaps the MRC do intend the data to be available to anyone with appropriate skills and willing to meet the necessary confidentiality standards. As in 'share data publicly', as AllTrials state.

    A (scientist) friend of mine commenting on open access data and patient willingness to share, said it's probably like organ donation (without the dying): people do it freely to help and don't want to restrict who gets it.

    I think most patients go into trials with the goal of helping provide information that will ultimately help other patients - not to provide proprietary data to researchers. And I suspect they don't much care who accesses their data so long as it is properly anonymised.
    biophile, SOC, alex3619 and 2 others like this.
  12. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,266
    Likes:
    3,807
    Monmouth, UK
    some highlights, from my perspective. All bolding mine

    1. Interests of patients trumped by those within the system
    2. Critical role of patients - even online communities :)
    3. What the BMJ plans to do
    Valentijn likes this.
  13. MeSci

    MeSci ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6

    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes:
    3,459
    Cornwall, UK
    Yet SIR Simon (did they knight the wrong Simon? :lol:) believes that using online forums perpetuates our illness...
    SOC, Simon and Valentijn like this.
  14. MeSci

    MeSci ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6

    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes:
    3,459
    Cornwall, UK
    Don't hold your breath. It's been NHS policy for years that the doctor-patient relationship should be an equal one, with both respecting each other's input. But it has continued to be the exception rather than the rule.

    Here is the NHS Constitution which has been advocating this for some time:

    http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Ri...013/the-nhs-constitution-for-england-2013.pdf

    and here is some additional stuff about NHS patients' rights:

    http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/your_family/health/nhs_patients_rights.htm
  15. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,152
    Likes:
    5,060
    Thanks Simon. Good to check up on their claims for these sorts of things.

    And thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm a bit with MEsci - "I'll believe it when I see it" - particularly with CFS.
  16. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,266
    Likes:
    3,807
    Monmouth, UK
    I can only hope their error is spotted and corrected :)

    MeSci, Esther12
    I don't think the revolution has happened yet, but I do think things are beginning to happen and a movement is building - not because of the BMJ editorial itself but for all the other things that are going on too, such as PCORI in the US. Might blog about this if I can get my act together.
    Valentijn, Esther12 and alex3619 like this.
  17. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,854
    Likes:
    10,453
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Please do blog about this, I for one would really want to read that.
    Simon likes this.
  18. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes:
    4,096
    Shared trial data may identify at-risk cancer patients

    18:23 09 April 2014 by Asher Mullard

    http://www.newscientist.com/article...data-may-identify-atrisk-cancer-patients.html

    I had a quick look at https://www.projectdatasphere.org/projectdatasphere/html/home.html .

    It appears that you have to apply for access, and have to agree to data protection rules etc, but I did not see anything restricting usage to 'bona fide' researchers only.
    Esther12, Simon and Valentijn like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page