Pandemic influenza communication: views from a deliberative forum

Objective  To use a deliberative forum to elicit community perspectives on communication about pandemic influenza planning, and to compare these findings with the current Australian national communication strategy. Design  Deliberative forum of 12 persons randomly selected from urban South Australia. Forum members were briefed by experts in infection control, virology, ethics and public policy before deliberating on four key questions: what, how and when should the community be told about pandemic influenza and by whom? Results  The forum recommended provision of detailed and comprehensive information by credible experts, rather than politicians, using a variety of media including television and internet. Recommendations included cumulative communication to build expertise in the community, and specific strategies to include groups such as young people, people with physical or mental disabilities, and rural and remote communities. Information provided should be practical, accurate, and timely, with no ‘holding back’ about the seriousness of a pandemic. The forum expressed confidence in the expert witnesses, despite the acknowledged uncertainty of many of the predictions. Discussion and Conclusion  The deliberative forum’s recommendations were largely consistent with the Australian national pandemic influenza communication strategy and the relevant literature. However, the forum recommended: release of more detailed information than currently proposed in the national strategy; use of non‐political spokespersons; and use of novel communication methods. Their acceptance of uncertainty suggests that policy makers should be open about the limits of knowledge in potentially threatening situations. Our findings show that deliberative forums can provide community perspectives on topics such as communication about pandemic influenza.     

Challenging the epistemological foundations of EBM: what kind of knowledge does clinical practice require?

This paper raises questions about the epistemological foundations of evidence‐based medicine (EBM). We argue that EBM is based upon reliabilist epistemological assumptions, and that this is appropriate – we should focus on identifying the most reliable processes for generating and collecting medical knowledge. However, we note that this should not be reduced to narrow questions about which research methodologies are the best for gathering evidence. Reliable processes for generating medical evidence might lie outside of formal research methods. We also question the notion of the knower that is assumed by EBM. We argue that EBM assumes an enlightenment conception of knowers as autonomous, substitutable individuals. This conception is troubled by the way that clinicians learn the role of anecdote in health care and the role of patient choice, all of which bring into play features of clinicians and patients as situated individuals with particular backgrounds and experiences. EBM's enlightenment conception of the knower is also troubled by aspects of the way evidence is produced. Given these limitations, we argue that EBM should retain its reliabilist bent, but should look beyond formal research methodologies in identifying processes that yield reliable evidence for clinical practice. We suggest looking to feminist epistemology, with its focus on the standpoints of individual situated knowers, and the role of social context in determining what counts as knowledge.