Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing: The challenge of evidence-based practice

This article reconsiders the fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing in light of the challenge of narrowempirics in the formof evidence-based practice. Objections to the dominance of evidence-based practice are reviewed, and the reasons for it are examined. It is argued that it is partially the result of weaknesses in the alternative patterns of ethical, personal, and esthetic knowing, the ineffability of which compromises accountability. This ineffability can be countered only by introducing a wider form of empirics than countenanced by evidencebased practice into all patterns of knowing, to demonstrate their salience and to make their use in practice transparent.

Bringing values back into evidence-based nursing: the role of patients in resisting empiricism

We examine problems resulting from the narrow empirical focus associated with evidence-based nursing, including the deleterious influence of vested interests, disattention to patients’ experiences, underestimation of the importance of social processes, lack of an individualized research perspective, marginalization of other forms of knowledge, and the undermining of patients’ autonomy. Addressing each problem in turn, we argue that inclusion of patients at all stages of evidence-based practice can counter or ameliorate these problems. While we concede that patient involvement is not a complete solution to the problem of empiricism, it is the most effective means available to defend nursing values.

Evidence-based Practice in Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy

book review

Cancer Cachexia Care: The Contribution of Qualitative Research to Evidence-Based Practice

Background: Despite its prevalence and prognostic impact, primary cachexia is not well understood. Its potential to cause considerable psychological stress indicates the need for qualitative research to help understand the perspectives of those affected.

Objective: The aims of this study were to describe the perspectives of patients with primary cachexia, of their relatives, and of the healthcare professionals involved in their care and to demonstrate how this evidence can be applied in practice at 4 different levels of application ranging from empathy to coaching.

Methods: A review of the qualitative literature and empirical qualitative investigation was used to understand the experiences of patients and relatives and the perspectives of professionals.

Results: The main worries expressed by patients and relatives concerned appetite loss, changing appearance, prognosis, and social interaction. We also describe their coping responses and their views of professionals’ responses. The main concerns of professionals related to poor communication, lack of clinical guidance, and lack of professional education.

Conclusions: Understanding patients’, families’, and professionals’ perspectives, and mapping that understanding onto what we know about the trajectory and prognosis of the condition, provides the evidence base for good practice. Qualitative research has a central role to play in providing the knowledge base for the nursing care of patients with cachexia.

Implications for Practice: The evidence provided can improve nurses’ insight and assist them in assessment of status, the provision of guidance, and coaching. There is a need for the development of a holistic, information-based integrated care pathway for those with cancer cachexia and their families.

Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evidence-based interventions

Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are pervasive developmental disorders that are diagnosed along a continuum of behavioural variants in social interaction, communication, and imagination. Some individuals on the spectrum are ‘high-functioning’ and able to cope in every day environments, while others are severely affected, non-verbal, and may have comorbid diagnoses, such as intellectual disability, epilepsy, and/or obsessional, conduct, or mental health disorders. ASD diagnosis can be formulated from as early as 6-months to one year of age, although it is more common that children are aged 2-3 years before diagnosis is affirmed. Frequently, higher functioning individuals are not diagnosed until adolescence or even adulthood.