Volume 184 - Issue 4

Evidence in palliative care research: how should it be gathered?

Authors:  Jennifer Tieman and David C Currow

Med J Aust 2006; 184 (4): 196-198. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00191.x
Published online: 20 February 2006

To the Editor: Aoun and Kristjanson’s viewpoint on palliative care research reminds us of the possible limitations of an evidence schema that is built on efficacy of intervention studies.1 For emerging fields and for care areas that cross disciplines, the possible sources of useful knowledge to guide practice — particularly in advance of the establishment of a significant evidence base — need to be recognised and valued.

To further complicate the gathering of evidence for such fields are the difficulties of accessing useful knowledge. Preliminary research on search strategies suggests that even good quality searches may recover fewer than half the articles relevant to palliative care in the general biomedical literature.2 More disturbing is the possibility that much of the research and thought in this field is not published, and therefore cannot be easily and actively searched.

In a systematic review of publication rates associated with conference presentation, the usual publication rate was seen to be around 45%.3 A recent investigation into publication rates associated with conference presentation in palliative care in Australia suggests a “conversion” rate of less than 20%.4 Publication represents an important step in the spectrum of knowledge dissemination. Such a low rate of publication of conference abstracts therefore represents a significant loss of information, opinion and evidence for the discipline of palliative care.

Evidence issues for complex and emerging areas are complicated not only by the restrictions of an evidence hierarchy that is intervention based, but also by the difficulties in searching and retrieving existing knowledge and evidence in such fields.


Authors


References