Results from scientific inquiry do not necessarily create value in health care practices. Read this article to understand why and what we should be doing differently to build population health and economic value.
Scientific studies and clinical trials do not necessarily
equate to actual value in clinical practices for patients and health systems. Scientific
inquiry is of course necessary, as are clinical trials, but even if these avenues
of inquiry demonstrate statistical significance and adequate patient safety,
there are other factors that must be considered to create value for population
health and for each practice and unique patient. The most important thing in research to improve
our health is to ask the right questions. Currently, in scientific inquiry, once an
investigation question is identified, it is called the hypothesis, and methods
are chosen for controls, measures, and reporting of the data. A randomized
control trial is held to the highest standard for this inquiry process, with
excellent controls, attempts to eliminate bias, and recognized quality standards.
Following this process, if the science finds merit to conduct a clinical trial
on patients, this is the next step. This all sounds good, except scientific studies
and clinical trials do not reflect real world variables in medical care. There
is a field of study, called Real World Effectiveness (RWE) which has been under
research for several decades, and there are now improved methods to assess actual
effectiveness before a health system adopts a new intervention in health care
and it has nothing to do with profits. Briefly, here are the reasons the current
study methods do not provide the information patients and health systems need
to optimize efficacy of treatment.
1. Scientific findings of statistical significance are not synonymous with value in the real-world practice of medicine.
2. Scientific studies do not necessarily include patient populations which are similar in a medical practice, because patients may have multiple co-morbidities, which may exclude them from study participation.
3. Clinical trials attempt to show actual treatment effectiveness, but there is also bias in the patient selection for clinical trials, because the drug company or medical device manufacturer want to show their product works. Thus, clinical trials cherry-pick patients who will conform to the methodology restrictions, and not include a lot of other issues such as health comorbidities.
4. Real world medical practices have many more variables than clinical trials. This is primarily due to the intimate relationship the clinician has with the patient and the customized approach he or she may use to meet the best treatment paradigm for her patients. This phenomenon makes it nearly impossible to make uniform strategies for all the risk profiles.
Thankfully, there is a method for identifying real world impacts of treatments, which would allow health systems and most importantly, the patient, to identify whether a drug, medical device, or procedure is worth it. Just like anything else which informs a decision, the individual weighs risks, potential benefits, proven reliability, and the cost. Unfortunately, unless you work in medical research, are a clinician, or some policy expert, you will not have this information to inform your treatment process. In many healthcare systems today, the person has more information up front on the vehicle they purchase, then a health care intervention. This practice needs to change and I outline how RWE works and can be applied in real clinical settings here.
The Cochrane strategy, which is the international standard
for the highest degree of efficacy in research includes these three questions:
Finally, why do we care about further refinement of experimental
results and treatments, because we can treat more people optimally for less
money if we include the question, Is it worth it, in our final decision model
before adoption of the treatment. This requires decisions to be made at a
systemic level, in clinical practice, and as an informed patient. Only by including the last question and
comparing results will we learn what is actually the best treatment for various
patient groups. People are not a one-size-fits-all and we should not be using
science to justify treatments for some as appropriate for all.
And this is the healthpolicymaven signing off, encouraging you not to sign blanket release forms when you have medical procedures, do stipulate that for which you agree and for which you decline. Also, it is a good idea to get a POLST document in place with your health system, which states your wishes for interventional treatment to extend your life. And this is not the same as a medical power of attorney, whom you have chosen, but it alerts EMT's and others in the care continuum.
Roberta Winter is a freelance journalist who accepts no money from health care entities for this column. Opinions expressed here are her own. Her guidebook to the U.S. healthcare system was published by Rowman & Littlefield in 2013. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442222977/Unraveling-U.S.-Health-Care-A-Personal-Guide
References
Franz Porzsolt, M. P. (2024). The Front-End
Processor Developed By Engineers-A Useful Tool for Describing the Quality and
Quantity of Progress in Healthcare. Qeois-Open Peer Review, 1-19.
Franz Porzsolt, M. W. (2024). Applying the Rule of
Designers and Architects "Form Follows Function (FFF) Can Reduce
Misinterpretations and Methodical Shortcomings in Healthcare. Trends in
General Medicine, 2(1), 1-7. Retrieved September 2024, 2024
Porzsolt, F. (2024). An Evidence-based Hypothesis:
Doctors Do Not Make Decisions Randomly but Based on Individual Patient's Risk
Profiles. Private Research Insitute of Economics (PRICE), Ulm, Germany,
1-11.