Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:1276 (7 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.a145
Bernard Crump, chief executive officer
1 NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, Coventry CV4 7AL
bernard.crump@institute.nhs.uk
Obtaining definitive evidence on the effects of large scale interventions can be difficult. Bernard Crump believes that implementation with careful monitoring is justified but Seth Landefeld and colleagues (doi: 10.1136/bmj.a144) argue that acting without proof of net benefit is both costly and potentially damaging to health
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Large scale health intervention covers a wide range of circumstances, including the use of a new drug or therapeutic procedure. In this case we have developed over the past 50 years a widely accepted understanding of the nature of the evidence that would lead to a consensus about an interventions use, while not underestimating the challenge of acquiring it. Other interventions are much more complex; they are about the behaviour of people and systems, and it does no service to the public to apply only the yardsticks we have developed for narrower biomedical interventions. Although we should be equally rigorous in our evaluation, we need to learn from other scientific sectors to broaden our understanding of evidence.
In the NHS the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) gives guidance on questions such as "Should the NHS make available gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer?" or "Is there adequate information about
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?