Towards the patient revolution
BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1209 (Published 29 January 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g1209
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Sorry I missed the original editorial about the patient revolution. The challenge is that surveys have shown that while the vast majority of physicians do not see patients as partners, neither their income nor their career suffers as a result to date.
We started Doctors 2.0 & You, as a cause and a conference, to help bring more physicians into the "patient inclusive movement". We have talented "digital doctors", "epatients" and others ready to participate. We'd love to work with you to make this happen faster. Please see our manifesto. Would love to work on it together. http://www.doctors20.com/manifesto/
Competing interests: No competing interests
I was delighted to read Fiona's Godlee's recent summary about work in progress towards the revolution in patient engagement with BMJ and perhaps other aspects of healthcare provision. I was particularly taken by the use of the phrase "patients and patient advocates" as opposed to patient leaders, an expression that leaves me a little uneasy when I read some of their views.
Where I am less convinced, however, is seeing patients as equal partners in all areas. While I value the notion of redress in the power balance - particularly in interpersonal terms - I recognise that there is considerable difference in the contribution the parties bring. Accordingly, I am not sure what equality would look like in delivery of clinical care and research and welcome some clarification.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Towards the patient revolution
Godlee asks “whether our main challenge will be just keeping up with the speed of change.” [1] She draws attention to Wicks et al`s assertion that “when it comes to clinical trials some patients are already well ahead of the game.”[2] : this is not new.
Twenty two years ago, in 1992, the BMJ drew attention to the influence of the AIDS activists in taking matter into their own hands. [3] In 1994/5 this incident was recounted at a Lancet conference in Bruges, and published in a Government Health Select Committee Report [4] :
“The United Kingdom, like the United States, has seen patient participation and involvement in AIDS trials, thus leading the way. Patients have a rôle to play by advocating to trialists that what they view as havoc being cause by organised well-informed patients (as we saw in The States) was in fact a challenge to the trialists` interpretation of the uncertainty principle which had ignored the patients` preferred outcomes.[3] The resultant compassionate release of a “promising” new AIDS drug, rejecting the discipline of the proper and best method of evaluation, demonstrated more forcibly to the patients than any imposition of a trial, the folly of such demands and hasty judgement of efficacy. Trialists might argue that this prolonged the agony for current and future patients, but those involved patients might argue that it hastened the understanding of both patient and trialist about the need for unhurried, controlled evaluation of interventions within a well-designed trial, designed jointly to take into account both parties` needs, based on a recognition of everyone`s responsibilities in the matter. The benefit of the involvement of a healthy public in debating these issues cannot be over-emphasised.” [5]
I believe we need to remember to learn from history and evolve rather than 'revolve'. [6]
[1] Godlee, F. Towards the patient revolution. BMJ 2014;348:g1209
[2] Wicks P, Vaughan T, Haywood J. Subjects no more: what happens when trial participants realize they hold the power? BMJ 2014;348:g368
[3] Institute of Medical Ethics Working Party. AIDS, ethics and clinical trials. BMJ 1992; 305:699-701
[4] Thornton H. “The patient`s role in research”. (Paper given at The Lancet “Challenge of Breast Cancer” Conference, Brugge, April 1994.) In Health Committee Third Report. Breast Cancer Services. Volume II. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. London HMSO July 1995. 112-114.
[5] Baum, M. “New approach for recruitment into randomised controlled trials.” The Lancet 1993; 341;812-814
[6] Thornton H. Empowerment is inappropriate for equal citizens. Letter: BMJ 2013;346:f3573 doi: 101136/bmj.f3573 4th June 2013 http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.f3573
Competing interests: No competing interests