{"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.
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.