By Manager in Healthcare, UK
Over many years, I have collected thousands of articles about lifestyle and the impact on our health, as well as articles about health, well-being, workplace health, non-communicable diseases, women’s health, including a range of studies that have been published from medical and other journals, undertaken by a range of researchers. These include randomised controlled trials, longitudinal studies, quantitative and qualitative studies, epidemiological studies, and surveys of all sizes, though often quite small cohorts. Along with this research, I have undertaken my own longitudinal study.
There are a few things that strike me in having read these published studies:
Very often the messages are contradictory – e.g. some say coffee is bad for you, and others say coffee is good for you, or red wine is good for you, or red wine is bad for you – raising a number of questions e.g. how do we know something is ‘good’ for us? On what basis? How come there are contradictory messages – given that some of these articles are based on ‘research’ studies? How could two similarly undertaken research studies about the same topic, e.g. coffee or red wine, come up with very different results, when the outcome could be potentially catastrophic for the recipient (e.g. the person drinking the wine or coffee because they now think it is ‘good’ for them)?
A number of the articles are ‘evidence-based’ – which suggests that the outcome of the study has been based on best available ‘evidence’ e.g. based on sound research and not based on opinion. And whilst there is much written about evidence-based practice, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based research, this opens up the question of what is ‘evidence’ in any given circumstance? The current definition of evidence-based practice is “the integration of critically appraised research, with clinical expertise, and the client’s preferences, beliefs and values” (1).