Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Occupational Physicians rely especially on advice from colleagues when answering their information demands. On the other hand, Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) promotes the use of up-to-date research literature instead of experts. To fi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hulshof Carel, Verbeek Jos, Schaafsma Frederieke, van Dijk Frank
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2005-08-01
Series:BMC Health Services Research
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/5/59
id doaj-d41cedd65c69467b81e0a236c2b12fed
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d41cedd65c69467b81e0a236c2b12fed2020-11-24T21:33:53ZengBMCBMC Health Services Research1472-69632005-08-01515910.1186/1472-6963-5-59Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literatureHulshof CarelVerbeek JosSchaafsma Frederiekevan Dijk Frank<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Occupational Physicians rely especially on advice from colleagues when answering their information demands. On the other hand, Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) promotes the use of up-to-date research literature instead of experts. To find out if there was a difference between expert-based practice and EBM we compared professional advice on occupational health topics with best evidence from the literature.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We asked 14 occupational physicians to consult their usual information sources on 12 pre-conceived occupational health problems. The problems were presented in the form of case vignettes which contained sufficient clinical information to be used by the occupational physicians for the consultation of their experts. We had searched the literature for the best available evidence on the 12 problems, which made it possible to answer the clinical questions with a clear yes or no.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The cases could be used by the occupational physicians as arising from their own practice. All together the occupational physicians consulted 75 different experts. Almost half of the consulted experts were near colleagues, 10% were industrial hygienists, 8% medical specialists and the rest had a varied background. Fifty three percent (95% confidence interval 42% to 65%) of all professional advice was not in line with the research literature. In 18 cases (24%) professional advice explicitly referred to up-to-date research literature as their used source. These cases were substantially less incorrect (17%) than advice that had not mentioned the literature as a source (65%) (difference 48%, 95% Confidence Interval from 27% to 69%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Advice that occupational physicians routinely get in their daily practice differs substantially from best evidence from the literature. Occupational physicians who ask professional advice should always ask about the evidence of this advice.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/5/59
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hulshof Carel
Verbeek Jos
Schaafsma Frederieke
van Dijk Frank
spellingShingle Hulshof Carel
Verbeek Jos
Schaafsma Frederieke
van Dijk Frank
Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature
BMC Health Services Research
author_facet Hulshof Carel
Verbeek Jos
Schaafsma Frederieke
van Dijk Frank
author_sort Hulshof Carel
title Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature
title_short Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature
title_full Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature
title_fullStr Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature
title_full_unstemmed Caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature
title_sort caution required when relying on a colleague's advice; a comparison between professional advice and evidence from the literature
publisher BMC
series BMC Health Services Research
issn 1472-6963
publishDate 2005-08-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Occupational Physicians rely especially on advice from colleagues when answering their information demands. On the other hand, Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) promotes the use of up-to-date research literature instead of experts. To find out if there was a difference between expert-based practice and EBM we compared professional advice on occupational health topics with best evidence from the literature.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We asked 14 occupational physicians to consult their usual information sources on 12 pre-conceived occupational health problems. The problems were presented in the form of case vignettes which contained sufficient clinical information to be used by the occupational physicians for the consultation of their experts. We had searched the literature for the best available evidence on the 12 problems, which made it possible to answer the clinical questions with a clear yes or no.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The cases could be used by the occupational physicians as arising from their own practice. All together the occupational physicians consulted 75 different experts. Almost half of the consulted experts were near colleagues, 10% were industrial hygienists, 8% medical specialists and the rest had a varied background. Fifty three percent (95% confidence interval 42% to 65%) of all professional advice was not in line with the research literature. In 18 cases (24%) professional advice explicitly referred to up-to-date research literature as their used source. These cases were substantially less incorrect (17%) than advice that had not mentioned the literature as a source (65%) (difference 48%, 95% Confidence Interval from 27% to 69%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Advice that occupational physicians routinely get in their daily practice differs substantially from best evidence from the literature. Occupational physicians who ask professional advice should always ask about the evidence of this advice.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/5/59
work_keys_str_mv AT hulshofcarel cautionrequiredwhenrelyingonacolleaguesadviceacomparisonbetweenprofessionaladviceandevidencefromtheliterature
AT verbeekjos cautionrequiredwhenrelyingonacolleaguesadviceacomparisonbetweenprofessionaladviceandevidencefromtheliterature
AT schaafsmafrederieke cautionrequiredwhenrelyingonacolleaguesadviceacomparisonbetweenprofessionaladviceandevidencefromtheliterature
AT vandijkfrank cautionrequiredwhenrelyingonacolleaguesadviceacomparisonbetweenprofessionaladviceandevidencefromtheliterature
_version_ 1725951451615723520