Self-perception and knowledge of evidence based medicine by physicians.

BACKGROUND: The influence, legitimacy and application of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) in the world is growing as a tool that integrates, the best available evidence to decision making in patient care. Our goal was to identify the relationship between self-perception about the relevance of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and the degree of basic knowledge of this discipline in a group of physicians. METHODS: A survey was carried out in a third level public hospital in Mexico City. Self-perception was measured by means of a structured scale, and the degree of knowledge through parameter or "rubrics" methodology. RESULTS: A total of 320 questionnaires were given to 55 medical students (17 %); 45 pre-graduate medical interns (14 %); 118 medical residents (37 %) and 102 appointed physicians of different specialties (32 %). Self-perception of EBM: The majority of those surveyed (n = 274, 86 %) declared that they were very or moderately familiar with EBM. The great majority (n = 270, 84 %) believe that EBM is very important in clinical practice and 197 physicians (61 %) said that they implement it always or usually. The global index of self-perception was 75 %. Knowledge of EBM: Definition of EBM; Seven of those surveyed (2 %) included 3 of the 4 characteristics of the definition, 82 (26 %) mentioned only two characteristics of the definition, 152 (48 %) mentioned only one characteristic and 79 (25 %) did not include any characteristic of EBM. Phases of the EBM process: The majority of those surveyed (n = 218, 68 %) did not include the steps that characterize the practice of EBM, of which 79 participants (25 %) mentioned elements not related to it. The global index of knowledge was 19 %. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the surveyed physicians have a high self-perception of the relevance of EBM. In spite of this, the majority of them did not know the characteristics that define the EBM and phases of the process for its practice. A major discrepancy was found between self-perception and the level of basic knowledge of EBM among the surveyed physicians.

Obesity and thrifty genotype. Biological and social determinism versus free will.

Obesity is a global public health problem with a concerning increasing rate and no conclusive answer related to its causes. The thrifty genotype, proposed by James V. Neel in 1962, is one of the many hypotheses that intend to explain the epidemic. Neel proposed that genetic variations in hunter-gatherer communities-which were selectively favorable in the past since they allowed to confront famine-are currently a disadvantage because food is plentiful and relatively constant. This conclusion remains valid despite being highly criticized. This review discusses that the hypothesis of the thrifty genotype supports an explicative approach based on biological determinism. This approach, such as social determinism, underestimates the role of individuals as free entities responsible for their own behavior. While a drastic change in the current theoretical framework occurs, in which individuals are considered as independent, free and self-responsible agents with the ability to overcome their heredity and their environment, the idea that the obesity pandemic cannot be explained or solved will be present. Although the influence of these elements in behavior is not rejected, it is proposed that behavior potentially and mainly comes from free will, which is neither biologically nor socially determined.

La obesidad es un problema de salud pública mundial con un crecimiento alarmante para el cual no se han encontrado respuestas concluyentes en relación con sus causas. Entre las múltiples hipótesis que intentan explicar la epidemia, se encuentra la del genotipo ahorrador, propuesta por James V. Neel en 1962. Neel propone que las variaciones genéticas en comunidades cazadoras-recolectoras que fueron selectivamente favorables en el pasado ­ya que permitieron enfrentar episodios de hambruna­, se convierten en una desventaja en la actualidad cuando los alimentos se han vuelto abundantes y son relativamente constantes. A pesar de tener muchos críticos, la conjetura de Neel permanece vigente. En este artículo se argumenta que la hipótesis del genotipo ahorrador apoya un enfoque explicativo basado en el determinismo biológico. Esta postura, al igual que la del determinismo social, subestiman el papel del individuo como un ente libre y responsable. Se hace la consideración de que la pandemia de obesidad no podrá ser explicada ni resuelta en tanto no ocurra un cambio drástico en el marco teórico prevalente en el que se incorpore el enfoque de que el individuo es un agente independiente, libre y responsable de sí mismo, con la capacidad potencial de colocarse por encima de su herencia biológica y del ambiente que lo rodea. No se rechaza la influencia de la biología y el entorno social en la conducta, pero se propone que esta se deriva de manera primordial de decisiones fundadas en el libre albedrío, el cual no está determinado ni biológica ni socialmente.

La obesidad y el genotipo ahorrador. Determinismo biológico y social versus libre albedrío / Obesity and thrifty genotype. Biological and social determinism versus free will

Resumen La obesidad es un problema de salud pública mundial con un crecimiento alarmante para el cual no se han encontrado respuestas concluyentes en relación con sus causas. Entre las múltiples hipótesis que intentan explicar la epidemia, se encuentra la del genotipo ahorrador, propuesta por James V. Neel en 1962. Neel propone que las variaciones genéticas en comunidades cazadoras-recolectoras que fueron selectivamente favorables en el pasado -ya que permitieron enfrentar episodios de hambruna-, se convierten en una desventaja en la actualidad cuando los alimentos se han vuelto abundantes y son relativamente constantes. A pesar de tener muchos críticos, la conjetura de Neel permanece vigente. En este artículo se argumenta que la hipótesis del genotipo ahorrador apoya un enfoque explicativo basado en el determinismo biológico. Esta postura, al igual que la del determinismo social, subestiman el papel del individuo como un ente libre y responsable. Se hace la consideración de que la pandemia de obesidad no podrá ser explicada ni resuelta en tanto no ocurra un cambio drástico en el marco teórico prevalente en el que se incorpore el enfoque de que el individuo es un agente independiente, libre y responsable de sí mismo, con la capacidad potencial de colocarse por encima de su herencia biológica y del ambiente que lo rodea. No se rechaza la influencia de la biología y el entorno social en la conducta, pero se propone que esta se deriva de manera primordial de decisiones fundadas en el libre albedrío, el cual no está determinado ni biológica ni socialmente.

Abstract Obesity is a global public health problem with a concerning increasing rate and no conclusive answer related to its causes. The thrifty genotype, proposed by James V. Neel in 1962, is one of the many hypotheses that intend to explain the epidemic. Neel proposed that genetic variations in hunter-gatherer communities-which were selectively favorable in the past since they allowed to confront famine-are currently a disadvantage because food is plentiful and relatively constant. This conclusion remains valid despite being highly criticized. This review discusses that the hypothesis of the thrifty genotype supports an explicative approach based on biological determinism. This approach, such as social determinism, underestimates the role of individuals as free entities responsible for their own behavior. While a drastic change in the current theoretical framework occurs, in which individuals are considered as independent, free and self-responsible agents with the ability to overcome their heredity and their environment, the idea that the obesity pandemic cannot be explained or solved will be present. Although the influence of these elements in behavior is not rejected, it is proposed that behavior potentially and mainly comes from free will, which is neither biologically nor socially determined.