Evidence-Based Medicine Policy Analysis
The claim stems from the research ideology that the proposed analytical method helps in identifying an evidence-based health intervention. In the search for a clear understanding of the evidence-based analysis, individuals would have to be well-acquainted with the following procedural steps that exclusively define the evidence-based analysis process. • Medical investigators or researchers develop a hypothesis about a certain medical idea that they think would probably materialize in terms of dissemination of quality care and improvement of patients’ safety. • Approval for the pilot tests on the medical experiment is requested • Participants are chosen randomly and divided into various groups for the trials to be done severally • The treatment conducted on every trial group is similar and the results are noted down in statistical format • Finally, the analysis takes place, where the collected data from randomized controlled trials is regressed to the control values so as to denote the modal value and behavior that represents the evidence for a decisive treatment plan development.
• The analysis extends to a level where one has to assess whether or not a proposed health intervention has integrated the current medical research evidence to existing clinical expertise, and factored the patients’ health values and preferences (Detterbeck, Gould, Lewis & Patel, 2018). Health Providers The caregivers form the larger part of the key players in EBM policy for they are unconditionally involved in the day to day implementation of the health policies, through deploying the newly proposed evidence-based treatment procedures in patients’ care. This is because they are the subjects who put the current best evidence into practice and subsequently enhance the realization of EBM policy. Patients In most cases, patients have to be engaged in the adoption and incorporation of any new health policy for they are primary beneficiaries of the same.
Therefore, patient populations often play the role of outcome assessment indicators for their feedback is intermittently used measure the degree of success of the EBM policy. Levels of Evidence 1A: Evidence from meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials This particular level of evidence is considered to be the strongest of all for it relies on statistical approaches to combine results of different RCTs, which are conducted randomly so as to avoid issues of biases. 4: Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions or clinical experience of respected authorities, or both The evidence here is gathered from personal experience’ testimonies and committee reports, which makes it invalid, unreliable and probably very biased since there is no first-hand data/information used, and no experiment performed under controlled treatment to ascertain the behavior of the participants.
This is the weakest of all the levels of evidence. Analysis of the Case of Constraints of the ACA on Evidence-Based Medicine The fact that Affordable Care Act (ACA) is based on universality, this means that the RCTs will have to be performed on a larger population, which is very expensive, and lengthy (Brownson, Baker, Deshpande & Gillespie, 2017). Thus, this would pose as an ACA’s constraint to EBM. The only option would be to utilize evidence from clinical experiences of respected authorities and reports by expert committees, which would be associated with grade D recommendation that indicates the presence of level-4 evidence. S. , White, D. M. , & Shaughnessy, A. F. Evidence-based public health. Oxford University Press. Burns, P. B. , Rohrich, R. Evidence-based medicine in the era of social media: scholarly engagement through participation and online interaction.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop