Commentary

Evidence-based medicine and “Médecine d'Observation”☆,☆☆

This article reports on changes in climate science, social science, public administration, and policymaking over the past twenty-five years. It responds to Gene I. Rochlin's “retrospective examination” of energy research and the social sciences. In 2014, we find that social scientists are still disadvantaged by policymaker biases and inaccessible deliberative systems, but also better poised to conduct original humanistic energy research and produce targeted social change interventions. We review promising social scientific advancements, particularly in the realm of citizen action research. We conclude with the case study of evidence-based practice, a model from the health field that illustrates how climate change and energy research, practice, and policymaking could benefit from the inclusion of social science perspectives and methods.

Modern evidence-based medicine (EBM) and its predecessor ‘Medecin d'Observation’ both emphasise that potential advances in healthcare must be researched and proven to do more good than harm using the principles of clinical epidemiology before they are incorporated into medical practice. EBM is considered an important advance in improving clinical care in gynaecology but EBM skills have traditionally not been covered in undergraduate or postgraduate education. Therefore there is a perceived need to compile texts on various aspects of gynaecological practice using EBM principles. This is what these two issues of the Best Practice series hope to achieve. The various chapters will provide readers with clinical advice generated from critically appraised information that has been identified as addressing relevant questions.