IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v275y2021ics0277953621001374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony

Author

Listed:
  • Taipale, Jaakko
  • Hautamäki, Lotta

Abstract

This article examines clinical practice guidelines (CPG) in the courtroom. The guidelines in question are Finnish national current care guidelines for brain injuries, and the case context is traffic insurance compensation cases contested in the Helsinki district court. We analyse 11 case verdicts qualitatively, drawing from earlier sociological and theoretical accounts of clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based medicine. What makes the case-type relevant for studying clinical practice guidelines is the fact that the cases, which feature a medical dispute concerning traumatic brain injury, involve highly specialized expertise and contradictory expert claims, but the cases are decided in a generalist court by non-expert judges. What we show in the article is how the guidelines structure, sequence and initiate temporal reworking in the judges' representation of medical evidence and testimony, and how the plaintiffs' delayed diagnoses complicate the application of the CPG in the evaluation. We further discuss the guidelines’ epistemic authority in the verdicts and finish by comparing the 2008 and 2017 editions of Finnish CPGs for brain injuries, suggesting a multifaceted, courtroom-mediated feedback loop between the patient-plaintiffs and the clinical practice guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Taipale, Jaakko & Hautamäki, Lotta, 2021. "Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:275:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621001374
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621001374
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113805?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moreira, Tiago, 2005. "Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1975-1985, May.
    2. de Jong, Judith D. & Groenewegen, Peter P. & Spreeuwenberg, Peter & Schellevis, François & Westert, Gert P., 2010. "Do guidelines create uniformity in medical practice?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 209-216, January.
    3. Kelly, Michael & Morgan, Antony & Ellis, Simon & Younger, Tricia & Huntley, Jane & Swann, Catherine, 2010. "Evidence based public health: A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1056-1062, September.
    4. Knaapen, Loes & Cazeneuve, Hervé & Cambrosio, Alberto & Castel, Patrick & Fervers, Beatrice, 2010. "Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 685-692, August.
    5. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    6. Cambrosio, Alberto & Keating, Peter & Schlich, Thomas & Weisz, George, 2006. "Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 189-199, July.
    7. Jasanoff, S., 2005. "Law's knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 49-58.
    8. Lambert, Helen, 2006. "Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2633-2645, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bourret, Pascale & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto, 2011. "Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 816-824, September.
    2. Perrotta, Manuela & Geampana, Alina, 2020. "The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    3. Lösch, Lea & Willems, Willemine & Bongers, Marloes & Timen, Aura & Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun, 2023. "Kaleidoscopic integration: Advancing the integration of incommensurable knowledge in healthcare guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).
    4. Kris Hoang & Steven E. Salterio & Jim Sylph, 2018. "Barriers to Transferring Auditing Research to Standard Setters," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 427-452, September.
    5. Moes, Floortje & Houwaart, Eddy & Delnoij, Diana & Horstman, Klasien, 2020. "Questions regarding ‘epistemic injustice’ in knowledge-intensive policymaking: Two examples from Dutch health insurance policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    6. Gutin, Iliya, 2022. "Not ‘putting a name to it’: Managing uncertainty in the diagnosis of childhood obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    7. Broom, Alex & Adams, Jon & Tovey, Philip, 2009. "Evidence-based healthcare in practice: A study of clinician resistance, professional de-skilling, and inter-specialty differentiation in oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 192-200, January.
    8. Wieringa, Sietse & Engebretsen, Eivind & Heggen, Kristin & Greenhalgh, Trish, 2021. "Clinical guidelines and the pursuit of reducing epistemic uncertainty. An ethnographic study of guideline development panels in three countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    9. Knaapen, Loes & Cazeneuve, Hervé & Cambrosio, Alberto & Castel, Patrick & Fervers, Beatrice, 2010. "Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 685-692, August.
    10. Moreira, Tiago, 2011. "Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: A conceptual model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1333-1341, April.
    11. Lynne-Joseph, Alyssa, 2024. "The reproduction of knowledge hierarchies in transgender medicine: Professional, lay, and global expertise in clinical practice guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 346(C).
    12. Kok, Maarten O. & Vaandrager, Lenneke & Bal, Roland & Schuit, Jantine, 2012. "Practitioner opinions on health promotion interventions that work: Opening the ‘black box’ of a linear evidence-based approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(5), pages 715-723.
    13. Christopher J. Ruhm, 2019. "Shackling the Identification Police?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1016-1026, April.
    14. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    16. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    18. Kabeer, Naila, 2020. "‘Misbehaving’ RCTs: The confounding problem of human agency," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. Cristina Bellés-Obrero & María Lombardi, 2022. "Teacher Performance Pay and Student Learning: Evidence from a Nationwide Program in Peru," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1631-1669.
    20. Sophie van Huellen & Duo Qin, 2019. "Compulsory Schooling and Returns to Education: A Re-Examination," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:275:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621001374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.