Research in psychopathology: epistemologic issues.

Etiologic research in psychiatry relies on an objectivist epistemology positing that human cognition is specified by the "reality" of the outer world, which consists of a totality of mind-independent objects. Truth is considered as some sort of correspondence relation between words and external objects, and mind as a mirror of nature. In our view, this epistemology considerably impedes etiologic research. Objectivist epistemology has been recently confronting a growing critique from diverse scientific fields. Alternative models in neurosciences (neuronal selection), artificial intelligence (connectionism), and developmental psychology (developmental biodynamics) converge in viewing living organisms as self-organizing systems. In this perspective, the organism is not specified by the outer world, but enacts its environment by selecting relevant domains of significance that constitute its world. The distinction between mind and body or organism and environment is a matter of observational perspective. These models from empirical sciences are compatible with fundamental tenets of philosophical phenomenology and hermeneutics. They imply consequences for research in psychopathology: symptoms cannot be viewed as disconnected manifestations of discrete localized brain dysfunctions. Psychopathology should therefore focus on how the person's self-coherence is maintained and on the understanding and empirical investigation of the systemic laws that govern neurodevelopment and the organization of human cognition.

Forensic science - A true science ?

While the US jurisprudence of the 1993 Daubert requires judges to question not only the methodology behind, but also the principles governing, a body of knowledge to qualify it as scientific, can forensic science, based on Locard's and Kirk's Principles, pretend to this higher status in the courtroom ? Moving away from the disputable American legal debate, this historical and philosophical study will screen the relevance of the different logical epistemologies to recognize the scientific status of forensic science. As a consequence, the authors are supporting a call for its recognition as a science of its own, defined as the science of identifying and associating traces for investigative and security purposes, based o its fundamental principles and the case assesment and interpretation process that follows with its specific and relevant mode of inference.

Contemporary perioperative care strategies.

BACKGROUND: Historically, the preoperative and postoperative care of patients with gastrointestinal cancer was provided by surgeons. Contemporary perioperative care is a truly multidisciplinary endeavour with implications for cancer-specific outcomes. METHODS: A literature review was performed querying PubMed and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 1966 to 2012 on specific perioperative interventions with the potential to improve the outcomes of surgical oncology patients. Keywords used were: fast-track, enhanced recovery, accelerated rehabilitation, multimodal and perioperative care. Specific interventions included normothermia, hyperoxygenation, surgical-site infection, skin preparation, transfusion, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, laparoscopy, radiotherapy, perioperative steroids and monoclonal antibodies. Included articles had to be randomized controlled trials, prospective or nationwide series, or systematic reviews/meta-analyses, published in English, French or German. RESULTS: Important elements of modern perioperative care that improve recovery of patients and outcomes in surgical oncology include accelerated recovery pathways, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, hyperoxygenation, maintenance of normothermia, avoidance of blood transfusion and cautious use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, promotion of laparoscopic surgery, chlorhexidine-alcohol skin preparation and multidisciplinary meetings to determine multimodal therapy. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary management of perioperative patient care has improved outcomes. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Thematic Comparison of Eight Frameworks of Quality Criteria in Qualitative Health Research

Background: Despite the increasing incidences of the publication of assessment frameworks intending to establish the "standards" of the quality of qualitative research, the research conducted using such empirical methods are still facing difficulties in being published or recognised by funding agencies. Methods: We conducted a thematic content analysis of eight frameworks from psychology/psychiatry and general medicine. The frameworks and their criteria are then compared against each other. Findings: The results illustrated the difficulties in reaching consensus on the definition of quality criteria. This showed the differences between the frameworks from the point of views of the underlying epistemology and the criteria suggested. Discussion: The aforementioned differences reflect the diversity of paradigms implicitly referred to by the authors of the frameworks, although rarely explicitly mentioned in text. We conclude that the increase in qualitative research and publications has failed to overcome the difficulties in establishing shared criteria and the great heterogeneity of concepts raises methodological and epistemological problems.