scholarly journals A Pragmatic Approach to Translating Low- and Very Low-Carbohydrate Diets Into Clinical Practice for Patients With Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Hafez Griauzde ◽  
Kathleen Standafer Lopez ◽  
Laura R. Saslow ◽  
Caroline R. Richardson

Across all eating patterns, individuals demonstrate marked differences in treatment response; some individuals gain weight and others lose weight with the same approach. Policy makers and research institutions now call for the development and use of personalized nutrition counseling strategies rather than one-size-fits-all dietary recommendations. However, challenges persist in translating some evidence-based eating patterns into the clinical practice due to the persistent notion that certain dietary approaches—regardless of individuals' preferences and health outcomes—are less healthy than others. For example, low- and very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (VLCKDs)—commonly defined as 10–26% and <10% total daily energy from carbohydrate, respectively—are recognized as viable lifestyle change options to support weight loss, glycemic control, and reduced medication use. Yet, critics contend that such eating patterns are less healthy and encourage general avoidance rather than patient-centered use. As with all medical treatments, the potential benefits and risks must be considered in the context of patient-centered, outcome-driven care; this is the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. Thus, the critical challenge is to identify and safely support patients who may prefer and benefit from dietary carbohydrate restriction. In this Perspective, we propose a pragmatic, 4-stepped, outcome-driven approach to help health professionals use carbohydrate-restricted diets as one potential tool for supporting individual patients' weight loss and metabolic health.

2020 ◽  
pp. 019459982095072
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Naunheim ◽  
Gregory W. Randolph ◽  
Jennifer J. Shin

Objective To provide a contemporary resource to update clinicians and researchers on the current state of assessment of patient preferences. Data Sources Published studies and literature regarding patient preferences, evidence-based practice, and patient-centered management in otolaryngology. Review Methods Patients make choices based on both physician input and their own preferences. These preferences are informed by personal values and attitudes, and they ideally result from a deliberative evaluation of the risks, benefits, and other outcomes pertaining to medical care. To date, rigorous evaluation of patient preferences for otolaryngologic conditions has not been integrated into clinical practice or research. This installment of the “Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology” series focuses on formal assessment of patient preferences and the optimal methods to determine them. Conclusions Methods have been developed to optimize our understanding of patient preferences. Implications for Practice Understanding these patient preferences may help promote an evidence-based approach to the care of individual patients.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya Goldenberg

In Miles and Mezzich’s programmatic paper “The care of the patient and the soul of the clinic: person-centered medicine as an emergent model of modern clinical practice”, the authors draw from a wide variety of sources to frame a theoretical underpinning for the emerging concept of “person-centered medicine” as a model of clinical practice. The sources include humanistic and phenomenological medicine, the biopsychosocial model, evidence-based medicine, critics of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care. Each offer commendable desiderata, which Miles and Mezzich selectively integrate into their burgeoning theoretical framework. My concern is that the selective uptake of desirably qualities from such diverse resources in order to progress person-centered medicine’s developing vision of “medicine for the person, by the person and with the person” obscures important theoretical differences among these sources that will likely result in difficulty for the concept of person-centered medicine. These diverse theoretical resources offer competing correctives to the problems with medicine. Some of these differences are irreconcilable and need to be highlighted in order to avoid creating conceptual confusion and allegiance to unproductive theoretical commitments at this critical point of framing and developing this emergent model of modern clinical practice. 


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
James Marcum ◽  
Jackson Griggs ◽  
Lauren Barron

To recapture medicine’s “soul” for the “care” of patients, Miles and Mezzich propose a version of person-centered medicine in which they “coalesce” both evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care. To that end, they identify 5 key principles from which they formulate a 4-part working definition of person-centered medicine. In this paper, we first analyze philosophically -ontologically, epistemologically and ethically - both their principles and definition and we then present a clinical case to operationalize their notion of person-centered medicine. We conclude with a brief comment on its feasibility for modern clinical practice.


2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 277-278
Author(s):  
Frank Holloway

In an era of evidence-based medicine, policy-makers and researchers are preoccupied by the task of ensuring that advances in research are implemented in routine clinical practice. This preoccupation has spawned a small but growing research industry of its own, with the development of resources such as the Cochrane Collaboration database and journals such as Evidence-Based Mental Health. In this paper, I adopt a philosophically quite unfashionable methodology – introspection – to address the question: how has research affected my practice?


Author(s):  
Abdullah Jibawi ◽  
Mohamed Baguneid ◽  
Arnab Bhowmick

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is an effective tool for identifying and critically appraising quality research findings, and allowing the best to be integrated within clinical practice. EBM requires familiarity with evidence grading systems, key statistical methods, and requires a good understanding of how to review and critique scientific papers to guide the clinical practice. This chapter introduces these tools and provide an easy-to-use layout for reading academic papers in hand.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document