David Oliver: Caveats about collaborative health
Open accessAbstract
In July, Fiona Godlee asked whether we were ready for collaborative care,1 highlighting an essay by a US author, Michael Millenson, that elegantly argued for moving beyond “person centred” healthcare to collaborative approaches.2 UK public health services have their own advocates in this movement—notably, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Coalition for Collaborative Care,3 and NHS England’s House of Care framework.4 I generally support this movement. As more people live with long term medical conditions, it surely makes sense for them to be more informed and more involved in identifying their own treatment plans and goals. It also makes sense for them to manage these in collaboration with clinicians, while …
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic measures that do not translate into consistent and substantial improvements in health outcomes is implicitly inequitable toward other patients.
“From a societal point of view, the implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic measures that do not translate into consistent and substantial improvements in health outcomes, is implicitly inequitable toward other patients (Oliver, 2017).”
From When more is not better: 10 ‘don’ts’ in endometriosis management. An ETIC* position statement (2019) · cites this paper as Oliver, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When more is not better: 10 ‘don’ts’ in endometriosis management. An ETIC* position statement
Club, E. E. T. I., Alio, L., Angioni, S., Arena, S., Bartiromo, L., Bergamini, V, Berlanda, N., Bonin, C., Busacca, M., Candiani, M., et al. (2019) · Human Reproduction Open · doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz009 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“Therapeutic individualism, especially when unsupported by goodquality evidence, carries an implicit risk of overmedicalization and is hardly acceptable, particularly in the context of fixed-budget public health systems designed to provide collective coverage to the many (Oliver, 2017).”
Background
- Authors
- Oliver, D.
- Corresponding author
- Oliver, David
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2017-08-29
- Volume
- 358
- Pages
- j3965
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2751742820
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- collaborative care, person-centred care, patient involvement, chronic disease, shared decision-making, patient-clinician collaboration, general practice, public health services
- MeSH terms
- Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, England, Humans, Patient Participation, State Medicine, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
