No article can or should be taken at face value. Each section must be looked at in detail. There are several ways to increase the level of trust that one has when reading research. The two most important are that the study is peer reviewed and it is published in a reputable journal. Both will increase the brain power and expected scientific rigor behind the question being researched.  Peers are usually familiar with the subject matter, what has been studied to date and if the study design makes sense. Consideration for the authors and peers involved should include questioning conflict of interest. Do the authors or peers have any financial, reputation or other interest in the outcome of the study. Second, is the paper published in a reputable journal. There are different levels of scientific rigor and reputation that journals have and should be weighted accordingly.

Competency builds over time to increase knowledge, conduct literature searches and interaction with those in the field. The question being researched should be of interest to the peer group as well as a wider audience and has the potential to affirm previous studies, increase knowledge and have some outputs with the information gained.

Honesty and moral integrity are important aspects. The article by Resnick and Belluz (2018) discusses the example of studies being retracted from highly credible journals and offers a cautionary tale of some of the challenges of research. On the surface the studies looked high quality, conducted by a tenured professor at a prestigious university. Perhaps it was pressure to publish or perish that put this researcher on a slippery slope.  Resnick and Belluz (2018) describe three main fixes to research challenges; 1. Preregistration of Study Designs 2. Open Data Sharing 3. Registered Replication Reports.

The article by Chow (2018) highlights the possible collusion between company executives and EPA officials to manipulate scientific data.

Evidence based decision making is important for transformational servant leaders because it becomes about best practice and not one person’s thoughts.  Actions can be based on researched outcomes, not thoughts, feelings or personal experience.

In my current role, this course will allow me to be more of a critical thinker with research papers. The science girl had her eyes opened to qualitative, mixed methods and action research. I had my favorite go to sections of studies, but now will look at papers in their entirety with an eye for quality.  Addiction medicine is finally moving into a phase of it being evidence-based medicine and not just voice from experienced physicians or philosophically based groups with judgement on the addicted individual.  There is a long way to go back filling studies and evidence for what is best practices to treat patients with Opioid Use Disorder. One cannot extrapolate alcohol addiction treatment with opioid addiction treatment. Research and then education is critically important to help quell the overdose crisis currently unfolding.

Final Note: I felt compelled to include some information about the TED talk ‘Bad Science’ by Ben Goldacre. He has made a career for himself out of criticizing science, pharma, homeopathy etc. Yes, we need to look deeply into studies for bias, incorrect conclusions and leaving out data. There also needs to be balance regarding the discussion about the pharmaceutical industry. To bring a product to market takes about $1.5 – $2.0 BILLION dollars. There is initial research from a lab, then a number of phased trials before you can submit the evidence to Health Canada for approval. Health Canada takes from 9 – 18 months to review the file in great detail. If approved, then and only then can the product be discussed, marketed and trained to health care providers. There is a patent with limited time on pharmaceutical products. Our marketing materials and representatives can only discuss what Health Canada has approved. If an organization goes ‘off label’ people might be fired immediately, the organization fined, or leadership jailed. There are guidelines and rules that must be followed.

Does my final note regarding the TED talk exhibit bias, understanding, experience or a combination of these things?

References

Goldacre, B. (2011, July). Battling bad science. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science

Resnick, B., Belluz, J., (2018, Oct). A top Cornell food researcher has had 15 studies retracted. That’s a lot. Vox, Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/19/17879102/brian-wansink-cornell-food-brand-lab-retractions-jama

Chow, L. (2018, Sept). Publisher: Roundup Studies Failed to Fully Disclose Monsanto’s Role. Ecowatch,  Retrieved from https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-roundup-cancer-case-2608582252.html 

Photo by: duy-pham-704498-unsplash