Skip to main content

Uncertainty in public health and clinical medicine

 I joined Twitter 10 years ago in May 2013. One of the lessons I've learned from social media is that too many people want “certainty”. But in public health and medicine, there often aren’t certainties; just probabilities of certain outcomes or unknowns due to a lack of evidence.

This can be frustrating for people who are looking for clear answers, but science is a process of discovery, and there is always more to learn; either from new research or from summarising and synthesising evidence from current and past research. By looking at the existing evidence, we can make informed decisions about our health and the health of our communities.

Uncertainty is a critical aspect of scientific inquiry and helps researchers refine their understanding of health-related issues over time. Uncertainty can arise due to factors such as incomplete data, limitations in research, or the complexity of the systems being studied.

Another way to deal with uncertainty is to be open to new information. As new research is conducted, we may learn more about the risks and benefits of different interventions. It is important to be willing to change our minds in light of new evidence.

Uncertainty doesn't necessarily mean that nothing can be done to address health issues. Rather, it means that we need to rely on the best available evidence and make informed decisions based on that evidence, while recognising that there may still be unknowns and potential risks.

Communicating clearly and transparently about the state of evidence, the limitations of that evidence, and the potential implications for health can help build trust and ensure that people have the information they need to make informed decisions about their health.

Finally, we are all in this together. Public health and medicine are complex areas, and we need to work together to find solutions. By working together and gaining public support, we can have a positive effect on the health of our communities.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...
5 comments
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more