Evidence-based medicine and physicians’ institutional agency in Russian clinical settings

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Critical Public Health Pub Date : 2023-02-20 DOI:10.1080/09581596.2023.2180608
E. Borozdina
{"title":"Evidence-based medicine and physicians’ institutional agency in Russian clinical settings","authors":"E. Borozdina","doi":"10.1080/09581596.2023.2180608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 1990s’ Russia, a wave of internationalization brought an evidence-based medical paradigm to Russian healthcare. Whilst there has been considerable critical commentary on the consequences of adopting this paradigm for medical decision-making, much of this relates to specific contexts in Europe, north America and Australasia, with little research addressing post-Soviet clinical practice. Drawing on semi-structured qualitative interviews with Russian physicians, this article explores the entanglements between the introduction of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the country and the transformation of post-socialist medical professionalism. I single out physicians’ efforts to reconcile the EBM paradigm with organizational constraints as indicative of professionals’ ground-level agency. I define the following components of such agency: (1) selective application of guidelines and use of foreign clinical recommendations; (2) establishing local professional solidarity; (3) developing relationships based on personalized trust with the patients. The study employs two sets of data (gathered in 2018 and in 2020) to trace the EBM-related agency of medical professionals both before and during COVID-19 pandemic. By offering analytical insights from post-socialist healthcare, where doctors’ discretion has historically been limited by excessive state control, the article contributes to academic debate on medical professionals’ autonomy and agency in the era of EBM-related standardization.","PeriodicalId":51469,"journal":{"name":"Critical Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2023.2180608","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In 1990s’ Russia, a wave of internationalization brought an evidence-based medical paradigm to Russian healthcare. Whilst there has been considerable critical commentary on the consequences of adopting this paradigm for medical decision-making, much of this relates to specific contexts in Europe, north America and Australasia, with little research addressing post-Soviet clinical practice. Drawing on semi-structured qualitative interviews with Russian physicians, this article explores the entanglements between the introduction of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the country and the transformation of post-socialist medical professionalism. I single out physicians’ efforts to reconcile the EBM paradigm with organizational constraints as indicative of professionals’ ground-level agency. I define the following components of such agency: (1) selective application of guidelines and use of foreign clinical recommendations; (2) establishing local professional solidarity; (3) developing relationships based on personalized trust with the patients. The study employs two sets of data (gathered in 2018 and in 2020) to trace the EBM-related agency of medical professionals both before and during COVID-19 pandemic. By offering analytical insights from post-socialist healthcare, where doctors’ discretion has historically been limited by excessive state control, the article contributes to academic debate on medical professionals’ autonomy and agency in the era of EBM-related standardization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
俄罗斯临床环境中的循证医学和医生机构
摘要20世纪90年代的俄罗斯,国际化浪潮为俄罗斯医疗带来了循证医学范式。虽然对采用这种模式进行医疗决策的后果有相当多的批评性评论,但其中大部分与欧洲、北美和澳大拉西亚的具体情况有关,很少有针对后苏联临床实践的研究。本文通过对俄罗斯医生的半结构化定性访谈,探讨了在该国引入循证医学与后社会主义医学专业化转型之间的纠葛。我指出,医生们努力调和循证医学范式与组织约束,这表明了专业人员的基层代理。我定义了该机构的以下组成部分:(1)选择性应用指南和使用外国临床建议;(2) 建立地方职业团结;(3) 与患者建立基于个性化信任的关系。该研究采用了两组数据(2018年和2020年收集)来追踪新冠肺炎大流行之前和期间医疗专业人员的EBM相关机构。这篇文章通过提供后社会主义医疗保健的分析见解,为医学专业人员在循证医学相关标准化时代的自主权和代理权的学术辩论做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Critical Public Health (CPH) is a respected peer-review journal for researchers and practitioners working in public health, health promotion and related fields. It brings together international scholarship to provide critical analyses of theory and practice, reviews of literature and explorations of new ways of working. The journal publishes high quality work that is open and critical in perspective and which reports on current research and debates in the field. CPH encourages an interdisciplinary focus and features innovative analyses. It is committed to exploring and debating issues of equity and social justice; in particular, issues of sexism, racism and other forms of oppression.
期刊最新文献
Factors influencing patients’ engagement with ChatGPT for accessing health-related information Australian burden of disease study: health equity through data disaggregation Indian dance (Bharatanatyam) to ease social loneliness and isolation in older adults Association between menopause and occupational burnout in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study Enriching the evidence base of co-creation research in public health with methodological principles of critical realism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1