↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based healthcare in practice: A study of clinician resistance, professional de-skilling, and inter-specialty differentiation in oncology

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Evidence-based healthcare in practice: A study of clinician resistance, professional de-skilling, and inter-specialty differentiation in oncology
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, November 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.10.022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Broom, Jon Adams, Philip Tovey

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is strongly shaping the nature and direction of biomedical practice and organisational culture. Clinicians are now expected to adopt the principles of EBM and evidence-based practice (EBP) whilst also maintaining such things as professional autonomy, clinical judgement and therapeutic integrity. Little sociological work has been done on the implications of EBM in oncology contexts. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 13 oncology consultants and 12 oncology nurses in Australia, in this paper we explore how oncology clinicians utilise and/or critique types of evidence and statistical probabilities; the organisational systematisation of care; and, wider policies of EBM. The results illustrate significant variation in perception of EBM between the oncology sub-specialties examined, and the central role of organisational structures and intra-professional hierarchies in how evidence is viewed and utilised in practice. The interviews also capture the ways in which oncology specialists are negotiating the systematisation of care under the rubric of EBM, and the contradictory effects of professional de-skilling vis-à-vis the reinforcement of biomedical objectivity/power. Finally, we examine the experiences and perceptions of oncology nurses in relation to evidence and EBM, exploring the interplay of processes of professionalisation and distinction in shaping the evidence-based trajectories of nursing. We contrast these results with previous sociological writings on EBM, reflecting on the applicability and limitations of these theoretical positions when applied to the experiences of oncology clinicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Cyprus 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
France 1 1%
Israel 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 82 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Master 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 26 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Psychology 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 16 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 May 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#10,089
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,723
of 179,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#56
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 179,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.