This is a great framework of our journey through medical research. I would argue that depending on the topic and their area of research/interest, even the most "pragmatist" and "enlightened" doc can fall in any one of the earlier stages. It is very few that are experts on ALL the "pieces of beauty" out there. Humility and curiosity are key. Sadly, those qualities don't "move the meat" in overbooked clinics and ERs.
I generally agree with the framework, very interesting way of medical sociological reflection.
That being sad, "most research findings are false" is not the same claim as "most research is wrong". Even if both apply, the main claim that most of published articles aren't "the truth" is a different and less nihilist claim, which was kind of theorized in Ioannidis' model.
I guess one of the best known "nihilists" would be John Ioannidis. Knowing that results are often not duplicated. That is probably a valuable observation (if you accept the premise). The political problem is that his ideas are often used as an excuse to reject ALL biomedical research, which has helped get us to the state in which we now find ourselves.
Getting past that is so important, but usually not sexy enough to grab headlines.
This is a great framework of our journey through medical research. I would argue that depending on the topic and their area of research/interest, even the most "pragmatist" and "enlightened" doc can fall in any one of the earlier stages. It is very few that are experts on ALL the "pieces of beauty" out there. Humility and curiosity are key. Sadly, those qualities don't "move the meat" in overbooked clinics and ERs.
I generally agree with the framework, very interesting way of medical sociological reflection.
That being sad, "most research findings are false" is not the same claim as "most research is wrong". Even if both apply, the main claim that most of published articles aren't "the truth" is a different and less nihilist claim, which was kind of theorized in Ioannidis' model.
I guess one of the best known "nihilists" would be John Ioannidis. Knowing that results are often not duplicated. That is probably a valuable observation (if you accept the premise). The political problem is that his ideas are often used as an excuse to reject ALL biomedical research, which has helped get us to the state in which we now find ourselves.
Getting past that is so important, but usually not sexy enough to grab headlines.