↓ Skip to main content

Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
402 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trisha Greenhalgh, Rosamund Snow, Sara Ryan, Sian Rees, Helen Salisbury

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is maturing from its early focus on epidemiology to embrace a wider range of disciplines and methodologies. At the heart of EBM is the patient, whose informed choices have long been recognised as paramount. However, good evidence-based care is more than choices. We discuss six potential 'biases' in EBM that may inadvertently devalue the patient and carer agenda: limited patient input to research design, low status given to experience in the hierarchy of evidence, a tendency to conflate patient-centred consulting with use of decision tools; insufficient attention to power imbalances that suppress the patient's voice, over-emphasis on the clinical consultation, and focus on people who seek and obtain care (rather than the hidden denominator of those that do not seek or cannot access care). To reduce these 'biases', EBM should embrace patient involvement in research, make more systematic use of individual ('personally significant') evidence, take a more interdisciplinary and humanistic view of consultations, address unequal power dynamics in healthcare encounters, support patient communities, and address the inverse care law.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 595 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 402 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
United States 4 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 384 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 16%
Researcher 64 16%
Student > Master 60 15%
Other 43 11%
Student > Bachelor 38 9%
Other 92 23%
Unknown 41 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 69 17%
Social Sciences 54 13%
Psychology 25 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 2%
Other 54 13%
Unknown 62 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 410. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2022.
All research outputs
#53,782
of 21,792,010 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#57
of 3,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#651
of 254,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,792,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them