Decisions in healthcare are made against the background of cultural and philosophical definitions of disease, sickness and illness. These concepts or definitions affect both health policy (macro level) and research (meso level), as well as individual encounters between patients and physicians (micro level). It is therefore necessary for evidence-based medicine to consider whether any of the definitions underlying research prior to the hierarchisation of knowledge are indeed compatible with its own epistemological principles.
- EbM, evidence-based medicine
- RCT, randomised clinical trial
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
↵i We use the terms “concept” and “definition” of health or disease interchangeably throughout this article. We do not enter the discussion on the relationship between concept and model(s) of disease (cp Hofmann,2 p 228).
↵ii We would like to affirm at this point that we are certainly in favour of patients’/consumers’ involvement in research, as we are aware that patients can indeed push for very valuable questions to be studied. It should however be clear that this requires an agenda detailing how and which patients’ preferences are to be incorporated into the planning and conducting of research projects (fig 3).
↵iii This also holds for pre-EbM medicine, though with EbM the situation is tapered, since here research from different backgrounds is collected.
↵iv We refer to “traditional” medicine that relies on individual clinical experience and/or on non-structured or subjectively structured bodies of medical knowledge. Pre-EbM medicine seems to be the term with the least pejorative connotations.
↵v We cannot enter the whole debate on philosophy of science with the controversy of critical rationalism.
↵vi We are aware that this is a new approach to the philosophical evaluation of EbM in relation to medical knowledge. We are currently working on a contribution to the different concepts of EbM held by adherents and opponents.
↵vii We admit that nowadays pathophysiologists and, especially, pharmacologists also stress that there are mechanisms that are not universal but are unique to age groups, ethnic groups, etc.
↵viii In how far the so-called biomedical and naturalist concepts of disease rather favour a paternalistic mode of practising medicine should be subject to further research, as EbM is discussed in the context of shared decision making.
↵ix A further discussion of the ethical implications of differing concepts of disease would be an interesting topic, yet cannot be analysed on the grounds of our initial question.
↵x The German language only has the term “Krankheit,” in contrast to the English concepts of disease, sickness and illness.
↵xi At this point, we cannot problematise Virchow’s concept of “nature”.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The technological invention of disease
- ‘Rethinking “Disease”: a fresh diagnosis and a new philosophical treatment’
- Chronic fatigue syndrome and an illness-focused approach to care: controversy, morality and paradox
- ‘What is (mental) disease?’: an open letter to Christopher Boorse
- Do diseases really exist?
- What are the key contextual factors when preparing for successful implementation of assistive living technology in primary elderly care? A case study from Norway
- Public, health professional and legislator perspectives on the concept of psychiatric disease: a population-based survey
- Elements of integrated care approaches for older people: a review of reviews
- Methodological insights: fuzzy sets in medicine
- Scoping review exploring the impact of digital systems on processes and outcomes in the care management of acute kidney injury and progress towards establishing learning healthcare systems