Discipline for pleasure: a new governmentality of HIV prevention.

This article explores recent HIV prevention campaigns for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), focusing on how they integrate pleasure and desire in their calls for self-discipline through a continual use of pharmaceuticals. This emerging type of health promotion, here represented by ads promoting the preventive use of pharmaceuticals, no longer simply approaches target groups with demands to abstain from harmful substances or practices and thus control risks, but also includes messages that recognize individuals' habits, values, and their desires for pleasure. Drawing on Foucault's work concerning discipline and security, we suggest that a novel, permissive discipline is emerging in contemporary HIV prevention. Further guided by Barthes's theory of images, we analyse posters used in prevention campaigns, scrutinizing their culture-specific imagery and linguistic messages, i.e. how the words and images interact. We conclude that these campaigns introduce a new temporality of prevention, one centred on pleasure through the pre-emption and planning that PrEP enables.

From evidence-based to sustainable healthcare: Cochrane revisited.

Evidence-based healthcare is the prevailing model for healthcare services. In Cochrane's seminal thinking, political context was included with the purpose of promoting healthcare equity. However, the subsequent evidence-based healthcare models marginalized political context. In this paper, we argue that current models of evidence-based healthcare fail to respond to emerging healthcare challenges. We claim that reintegration of political context is crucial to make healthcare sustainable. Global communities are anticipating ecological crises with immense repercussions for healthcare. This prospect illustrates that healthcare models failing to integrate political context also risk neglecting some of the most relevant healthcare issues of our time.

Implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: How Is Health Framed in the Norwegian and Swedish Voluntary National Review Reports?

BACKGROUND: The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are parts of an ambitious framework for global development, the 2030 Agenda. Voluntary national reviews (VNRs) are described as "cornerstones" in the followup system, which is premised on international sharing of knowledge and experience. Norway and Sweden are among the world's most sustainable countries, aiming to be leaders in the implementation of the SDGs. The objective of this article is to investigate and compare how health is framed in the VNRs of these two high-income countries, and to discuss the implications of these framings for potential actions. METHODS: Discourse analysis inspired by the concept of 'framing,' which refers to the discursive presentation of an issue where certain problem definitions and solutions are privileged over others. Frames are structures that organise and direct attention to particular aspects of reality, and define what is seen. RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrates that in the Norwegian VNR (NVNR), the issue of health is simplistically framed, focusing on the favourable situation of the majority, thus providing weak grounds for transformative action. In the Swedish VNR (SVNR), health is framed to highlight health as inextricably tied to societal inequalities. This underscores the need for integrated political action and leadership to counteract structural differences with negative consequences for health. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the two VNRs studied found a difference in how health is framed in these documents and these frames point to differences in approach and capacity to address health inequities and realise the holistic and integrative concept of health promoted in the 2030 Agenda. To realize the Agenda's vision of "leaving no one behind" discourses of implementation that support the Agenda's inclusive and holistic ambition must be developed. Further development of the follow-up and review system should acknowledge and address how frames can limit or enable integrative actions and are therefore important drivers of change.

Clinical guidelines and the pursuit of reducing epistemic uncertainty. An ethnographic study of guideline development panels in three countries.

PURPOSE: To explore, from a philosophy of knowledge perspective, the contribution of the guideline development process to reducing epistemic uncertainty in clinical decision-making - defined as the challenge of applying evidence to patients, dealing with conflicting information and determining the level of confidence in a medical conclusion. METHODS: Longitudinal ethnographic study of national guideline development panels. Fieldnotes were collected from 19 panel meetings in UK, Netherlands and Norway (~120 h of observation) between September 2016 and February 2019. Draft guidelines, review protocols and background material were collated (~200 documents). Data were analyzed thematically to gain familiarity and then theorized using concepts of knowledge development and use and clinical decision-making. RESULTS: Guideline development panels in all three countries wrestled with epistemic tensions - notably between the desire to "purify" an assumed external truth (for example by limiting included evidence to high-quality randomized controlled trials) and a more pragmatic and pluralist approach that drew on a wider range of evidence including qualitative research, real-world data, clinical experience and patient testimony. Detailed analysis of the process by which particular guideline recommendations were constructed allowed us to draw out the implications of these tensions for guideline users in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Guideline development panels apply multiple - often conflicting - understandings of knowledge, inference and truth in an attempt to reduce epistemic uncertainty. Guidelines makers, clinicians, scientists and students should engage critically and reflexively with the philosophical assumptions that underpin guideline development and inductive inference to build capability to deal with clinical complexity.

A system for students' evaluation of lectures in the medical programme in Oslo. / Et system for studentevaluering av forelesninger ved medisinstudiet i Oslo.

BACKGROUND: Students and education authorities are expressing an increasing demand for educational quality and student involvement in higher education. We present a descriptive observational study of a student-initiated system for evaluation of lectures in the medical degree programme at the University of Oslo. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Criteria-based student evaluations of 445 lectures in the first and second year of the medical degree programme were conducted in spring and autumn 2017 and spring 2018; after each lecture, three students completed a questionnaire about the lecture. The responses were sent by email to the lecturer on the same day. We performed an analysis of the evaluations, a group interview with the cohort's elected representatives, and a questionnaire survey among the lecturers who received an evaluation. RESULTS: The lecturers received generally good feedback, but the student evaluations also indicated a clear potential for improvement: 21 % of the lectures were not adapted to the volume of information, 32 % did not point out the association with the learning outcomes, 31 % failed to activate the students and 40 % did not provide a summary at the end of the lecture. The cohort's elected representatives had a positive attitude to the evaluation scheme, but requested a simpler technical solution. Almost all the lecturers welcomed the student evaluation, and more than half had used the evaluations to improve their lectures. INTERPRETATION: This quality development project shows how students, teachers, administration and management can collaborate to improve the teaching.

Rethinking bias and truth in evidence-based health care.

In modern philosophy, the concept of truth has been problematized from different angles, yet in evidence-based health care (EBHC), it continues to operate hidden and almost undisputed through the linked concept of "bias." To prevent unwarranted relativism and make better inferences in clinical practice, clinicians may benefit from a closer analysis of existing assumptions about truth, validity, and reality. In this paper, we give a brief overview of several important theories of truth, notably the ideal limit theorem (which assumes an ultimate and absolute truth towards which scientific inquiry progresses), the dominant way truth is conceptualized in the discourse and practice of EBHC. We draw on Belgian philosopher Isabelle Stengers' work to demonstrate that bias means one thing if one assumes a world of hard facts "out there," waiting to be collected. It means something different if one takes a critical view of the knowledge-power complex in research trials. Bias appears to have both an unproductive aspect and a productive aspect as argued by Stengers and others: Facts are not absolute but result from an interest, or interesse: a bias towards a certain line of questioning that cannot be eliminated. The duality that Stengers' view invokes draws attention to and challenges the assumptions underlying the ideal limit theory of truth in several ways. Most importantly, it casts doubt on the ideal limit theory as it applies to the single case scenario of the clinical encounter, the cornerstone of EBHC. To the extent that the goal of EBHC is to support inferencing in the clinical encounter, then the ideal limit as the sole concept of truth appears to be conceptually insufficient. We contend that EBHC could usefully incorporate a more pluralist understanding of truth and bias and provide an example how this would work out in a clinical scenario.

How Knowledge Is Constructed and Exchanged in Virtual Communities of Physicians: Qualitative Study of Mindlines Online.

BACKGROUND: As a response to the criticisms evidence-based practice currently faces, groups of health care researchers and guideline makers have started to call for the appraisal and inclusion of different kinds of knowledge in guideline production (other than randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) to better link with the informal knowledge used in clinical practice. In an ethnographic study, Gabbay and Le May showed that clinicians in everyday practice situations do not explicitly or consciously use guidelines. Instead, they use mindlines: collectively shared, mostly tacit knowledge that is shaped by many sources, including accumulated personal experiences, education (formal and informal), guidance, and the narratives about patients that are shared among colleagues. In this study on informal knowledge, we consider virtual networks of clinicians as representative of the mindlines in the wider medical community, as holders of knowledge, as well as catalysts of knowing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore how informal knowledge and its creation in communities of clinicians can be characterized as opposed to the more structured knowledge produced in guideline development. METHODS: This study included a qualitative study of postings on three large virtual networks for physicians in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Norway, taking the topic of statins as a case study and covering more than 1400 posts. Data were analyzed thematically with reference to theories of collaborative knowledge construction and communities of practice. RESULTS: The dataset showed very few postings referring to, or seeking to adhere to, explicit guidance and recommendations. Participants presented many instances of individual case narratives that highlighted quantitative test results and clinical examination findings. There was an emphasis on outliers and the material, regulatory, and practical constraints on knowledge use by clinicians. Participants conveyed not-so-explicit knowledge as tacit and practical knowledge and used a prevailing style of pragmatic reasoning focusing on what was likely to work in a particular case. Throughout the discussions, a collective conceptualization of statins was generated and reinforced in many contexts through stories, jokes, and imagery. CONCLUSIONS: Informal knowledge and knowing in clinical communities entail an inherently collective dynamic practice that includes explicit and nonexplicit components. It can be characterized as knowledge-in-context in practice, with a strong focus on casuistry. Validity of knowledge appears not to be based on criteria of consensus, coherence, or correspondence but on a more polyphonic understanding of truth. We contend that our findings give enough ground for further research on how exploring mindlines of clinicians online could help improve guideline development processes.

Physiotherapists' encounters with "obese" patients: Exploring how embodied approaches gain significance.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is regarded as a modern lifestyle problem, causing illness, stigma, discrimination, and psychological problems. To help patients avoid these problems, physiotherapists increasingly engage in lifestyle programs specialized in weight loss. OBJECTIVE: To explore how physiotherapists' encounters with patients diagnosed as "obese" acquire significance for their development as clinicians. METHOD: The material draws on semi-structured interviews with eight physiotherapists. We conducted a thematic analysis inspired by van Manen's hermeneutic-phenomenological approach combined with Kvale and Brinkman's critical approach. FINDINGS: The analysis identified the following four themes: 1) Striving to find one's own style of communication; 2) Relating to bodily discrepancies; 3) Developing clinical competence through bodily encounters; and 4) Gaining insight into the dilemmas of group-based lifestyle programs. Taken together, our findings highlight bodily encounters between patients and physiotherapists as an invaluable source of insight. Such insight can shape physiotherapists' development as clinicians inspiring them to develop their unique ways of communicating so that patients diagnosed as obese can feel empowerment rather than failure and shame. At the same time, our findings point to the need of critically reflecting on ones' own approach entering a double role of both controller and supporter. As such, our findings complicate and extend previous work on stigma and shame. CONCLUSION: Our research leads us to conclude that more emphasis on critical thinking in physiotherapy is necessary. We suggest that this should be given more priority in research, education, as well as in clinical practice.

Has evidence-based medicine ever been modern? A Latour-inspired understanding of a changing EBM.

Evidence-based health care (EBHC), previously evidence-based medicine (EBM), is considered by many to have modernized health care and brought it from an authority-based past to a more rationalist, scientific grounding. But recent concerns and criticisms pose serious challenges and urge us to look at the fundamentals of a changing EBHC. In this paper, we present French philosopher Bruno Latour's vision on modernity as a framework to discuss current changes in the discourse on EBHC/EBM. Drawing on Latour's work, we argue that the early EBM movement had a strong modernist agenda with an aim to "purify" clinical reality into a dichotomy of objective "evidence" from nature and subjective "preferences" from human society and culture. However, we argue that this shift has proved impossible to achieve in reality. Several recent developments appear to point to a demise of purified evidence in the EBHC discourse and a growing recognition-albeit implicit and undertheorized-that evidence in clinical decision making is relentlessly situated and contextual. The unique, individual patient, not abstracted truths from distant research studies, must be the starting point for clinical practice. It follows that the EBHC community needs to reconsider the assumption that science should be abstracted from culture and acknowledge that knowledge from human culture and nature both need translation and interpretation. The implications for clinical reasoning are far reaching. We offer some preliminary principles for conceptualizing EBHC as a "situated practice" rather than as a sequence of research-driven abstract decisions.

Can use of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction reduce radiation dose in unenhanced head CT? An analysis of qualitative and quantitative image quality.

BACKGROUND: Iterative reconstruction can reduce image noise and thereby facilitate dose reduction. PURPOSE: To evaluate qualitative and quantitative image quality for full dose and dose reduced head computed tomography (CT) protocols reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen patients undergoing follow-up head CT were included. All patients underwent full dose (FD) exam and subsequent 15% dose reduced (DR) exam, reconstructed using FBP and 30% ASIR. Qualitative image quality was assessed using visual grading characteristics. Quantitative image quality was assessed using ROI measurements in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), white matter, peripheral and central gray matter. Additionally, quantitative image quality was measured in Catphan and vendor's water phantom. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in qualitative image quality between FD FBP and DR ASIR. Comparing same scan FBP versus ASIR, a noise reduction of 28.6% in CSF and between -3.7 and 3.5% in brain parenchyma was observed. Comparing FD FBP versus DR ASIR, a noise reduction of 25.7% in CSF, and -7.5 and 6.3% in brain parenchyma was observed. Image contrast increased in ASIR reconstructions. Contrast-to-noise ratio was improved in DR ASIR compared to FD FBP. In phantoms, noise reduction was in the range of 3 to 28% with image content. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in qualitative image quality between full dose FBP and dose reduced ASIR. CNR improved in DR ASIR compared to FD FBP mostly due to increased contrast, not reduced noise. Therefore, we recommend using caution if reducing dose and applying ASIR to maintain image quality.

Uncertainty and objectivity in clinical decision making: a clinical case in emergency medicine.

The evidence-based practice and evidence-based medicine (EBM) movements have promoted standardization through guideline development methodologies based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of best available research. EBM has challenged clinicians to question their reliance on practical reasoning and clinical judgement. In this paper, we argue that the protagonists of EBM position their mission as reducing uncertainty through the use of standardized methods for knowledge evaluation and use. With this drive towards uniformity, standardization and control comes a suspicion towards intuition, creativity and uncertainty as integral parts of medical practice. We question the appropriateness of attempts to standardize professional practice through a discussion of the importance of uncertainty. Greenhalgh's taxonomy of uncertainty is used to inform an analysis of the clinical reasoning occurring in a potentially life threatening emergency situation with a young patient. The case analysis is further developed by the use of the Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan's theory about understanding and objective knowing. According to Lonergan it is not by getting rid of or even by reducing uncertainty, but by attending systematically to it and by relating to it in a self-conscious way, that objective knowledge can be obtained. The paper concludes that uncertainty is not a regrettable and unavoidable aspect of decision making but a productive component of clinical reasoning.

Unpacking knowledge translation in participatory research: a micro-level study.

OBJECTIVES: Funding bodies, policy makers, researchers and clinicians are seeking strategies to increase the translation of knowledge between research and practice. Participatory research encompasses a range of approaches for clinicians' involvement in research in the hope of increasing the relevance and usability of research. Our aim was to explore how knowledge is translated and integrated in participants' presentations and negotiations about knowledge. METHODS: Twelve collaboration meetings were observed, and discussions between researchers and clinicians were recorded. The material was examined using the following analytical terms: knowledge object, knowledge form, knowledge position and knowledge tasks. RESULTS: We identified a recurring rhetorical pattern in translational processes that we call 'relevance testing': a strategy by which the participants attempt to create coherence and identify relevance across different contexts. The limitation of this translational strategy was a tendency to reinforce a 'two-communities' logic: re-establishing the separated worlds and rationales between clinicians and researchers. The 'translational work' that unfolds during discussions remains implicit. It may be that participants are unable to explicitly address and identify the knowledge translation processes because they lack necessary conceptual tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our results contribute to increased awareness about translational processes and provide a language through which barriers to translation can be addressed.