Politics of changing clinical guidelines?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.


This might not be the ideal forum for this post, but I'm sure someone on here can refer me to some good literature.

I was wondering if there are any books/memoirs/blog posts by physicians or scientists that discuss the politics of changing clinical guidelines after a large body of evidence has been accumulated. While these efforts are evidence-based, I'm not sure if the bureaucracies that enact change are dependent on scientific consensus alone.

For example, I shadowed a doctor who told me about the current controversy in Sleep Medicine, where CMS appears to have more power than physicians/scientists in setting clinical guidelines. What's fascinating is that the use of AHI to diagnose OSA and even the severity classification (mild/moderate/severe) for OSA were pushed by CMS - not physicians. This is interesting because resistance to change is driven by a cost-cutting incentive, not an old guard of researchers.

Are there any other stories on the bureaucracy of evidence based medicine? It's not breaking news that basic/translational science is slowed by the older generation, but changing clinical guidelines involves stakeholders who aren’t physicians or scientists. Evidence-based medicine is quite young, but I hope there are some stories out there of older physicians who had to wade through politics to push scientific consensus into the clinic.

Members don't see this ad.
Last edited by a moderator: