| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Rapid Response to:
|
|
Responses published:
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Lack of Translation of Research Into Practice
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Rajesh Chauhan, Consultant, Family Medicine & Communicable Diseases 309/9 A.V. Colony, Sikandra, Agra. INDIA.
Send response to journal:
drchauhanrajesh{at}yahoo.com Dr. Rajesh Chauhan
|
Dear Editor, Your article dealing with reasons of failure of translation of research into practice [1] is quite detailed and very relevant for the present. However, if one were to see the phenomenal research outcomes these days, it would turn mind-boggling. It is rather difficult to keep up with the pace of the changes that are being affected all around us especially in the field of patient care. Longitivity of any research is at a premium, and has dwindled in the present circumstances. As soon as one research gets published, it has high probability of falling into criticisms of all kinds. Factors like interplay of bias and competing interests also contribute to low acceptability [2]. Other factors like findings being based on a small cohort, not being representative, poorly structured, incomplete data, unclear analysis, poor relevance, equivocal, improperly scrutinized, premature and not tested properly in the pestle of time, etc, do play upon the psyche of a practitioner when choosing to incorporate the research findings into practice. Above all the utility over and above the established modalities is doubtful and soon enough there is another research, as witnessed frequently, denying or denigrating the findings of the earlier research on the subject [2,3]. Patients and the practitioners remain unchanged, whereas research outcomes on the same subject keep changing. Guidelines are meant to be suggestive. Moreover practitioners should have the faith that the guidelines now published would not be changed so soon because of insufficient deliberation at the time of their first issue. Take the same example of use of beta-blockers as cited in your article [1]. Their use is controversial at best and almost regularly there is some or the other research finding which further confuses the issue of their use. Must we expect practitioners to fall in line with earlier guidelines and change over to a fresh set of guidelines soon enough and probably yet another different set sometime later? Lets leave aside the plight of a confused doctor, but where does this leave a patient and what about his faith on the practitioner? A practitioner will always fall short of words in trying to explain all this to his/her patients. In order to make relevance of the published research and put them in practice, it should be ensured to lay down strict measures on their acceptance in practice. Haste should be avoided in formulating directives and the directives be deliberated with utmost care and precautions, taking into view the long term perspectives and advantages over the established modalities. Then only should it be prudent to expect it to be translated into practice. These shall be more acceptable if provided by a group of professionals with requisite knowledge, stature, and eminence and are respected universally for their integrity and uprightness. Likewise, your editorial staff has immense responsibilities and practitioners would look up to you for definite answers. With warm regards. Reference: 1. Green LA, Seifert CM. Translation of Research Into Practice: Why We Can’t "Just Do It". The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 2005; 18: 541-545. 2. Neale AV, Schwartz KL, Bowman MA. Conflict of Interest: Can We Minimize Its Influence in the Biomedical Literature? (Editorial). The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 2005; 18: 411-413. 3. Godlee F. In praise of uncertainty. BMJ 2005; 331: 0-f |
|||
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
Rapid Response: