Bridging the gap between science-led research and evaluation of clinical practice: the role of service innovation audits and case studies

Shane McAulfe, David Unwin, James Bradfield, Sumantra Ray, Kathy Martyn

    Research output: Other contributionpeer-review

    Abstract

    Two recent publications in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health 1 2 have been subject to mixed reactions from members of both nutrition science and clinical practice communities. As a centre bridging both scientific research and clinical practice, we have heard and considered valid arguments from both schools of thinking.3

    Nutrition science argues that the publication of research based on clinical audits and in particular, n=1 case studies, lack the scientific rigour to justify any implementation in the clinical setting, partly because of a lack of control over variables including unknown confounders and the presence of bias. Proponents of the latter may argue that clinical audits and novel case studies are crucial in supporting implementation of science into practice via recognition of new trends or outliers in clinical findings and practice patterns. Showcasing n=1 cases may also provide motivation to colleagues, helping them to challenge preconceived ideas and consider the difference between research and clinical practice, then to think through and apply similar approaches to help their own patients—ultimately leading to better practice.4 However, these views are not dichotomous, but complementary, whereby practice should inform science and science should inform practice.
    Original languageEnglish
    TypeLetter
    PublisherBMJ
    Number of pages2
    Place of PublicationUK
    Volume4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 16 Feb 2021

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Bridging the gap between science-led research and evaluation of clinical practice: the role of service innovation audits and case studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this