1
00:00:00,990 --> 00:00:08,850
Well, well, welcome. Welcome to the Martin School. And this is one of my favourite buildings at Oxford.

2
00:00:08,850 --> 00:00:11,790
I love the elephant in the spotlight at night.

3
00:00:11,790 --> 00:00:20,160
If you haven't seen it before, you will see the elephant lit from the bottom when you go out because of the history of Indian Institute.

4
00:00:20,160 --> 00:00:26,400
Well, there aren't many superstars in decision making, but one of them is here tonight.

5
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:41,570
Get bigger answer. And I just looked at my bookshelf and so I just think a little bit of work bounded rationality.

6
00:00:41,570 --> 00:00:49,400
This idea, that rationale that we're all rational human beings, well, to a degree, their degree is spoken,

7
00:00:49,400 --> 00:01:00,560
bounded rationality and the concept of adaptive thinking and then for the public risk, risk savvy.

8
00:01:00,560 --> 00:01:07,940
How do people make decisions? And this has been it is which we restarted evidence based medicine.

9
00:01:07,940 --> 00:01:11,510
I think I've heard of getting cigarettes are a great pity.

10
00:01:11,510 --> 00:01:22,380
But over the years we've seen how the idea of logic and teaching people things called facts and using things called numbers only go so far.

11
00:01:22,380 --> 00:01:28,680
Because rationality only goes so far as scared to describe it.

12
00:01:28,680 --> 00:01:36,990
And I once said to Dave Sackett how you judge a library, how you evaluate a library.

13
00:01:36,990 --> 00:01:45,830
He said it's the number of books being stolen. And the only this is a book, get an eye.

14
00:01:45,830 --> 00:01:50,090
Everything called better doctors, better patients, better decisions.

15
00:01:50,090 --> 00:02:00,590
And I've only got a German edition left and really get has helped us think dramatically differently about the way decisions are made.

16
00:02:00,590 --> 00:02:02,900
When we launched this book,

17
00:02:02,900 --> 00:02:12,080
I looked around and they are sitting about there was the governor of the Bank of England because he'd read been influenced by Gipped.

18
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:20,210
Because for and I wonder why the hell is he here? Because we have AIDS in doctors making decisions and patients making decisions.

19
00:02:20,210 --> 00:02:29,090
But of course, Gurnard sure that supposing you were a young, bright young hedge fund manager, what sort of decision maker were you?

20
00:02:29,090 --> 00:02:34,740
You'd be a gambler. All right. How do you use your rustics? Well, no one ever thought of that before.

21
00:02:34,740 --> 00:02:41,970
So the Bank of England and people who the big money people also recognised what Kurt had to offer,

22
00:02:41,970 --> 00:02:48,120
and that's what led to the centre in Cambridge with David Spiegelhalter and Gert's own work,

23
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:54,690
which has spanned a number of countries, including Chicago. And he's now based back in Berlin.

24
00:02:54,690 --> 00:02:59,550
But we're very privileged to have you here. We've learnt a great deal from you.

25
00:02:59,550 --> 00:03:03,240
You're working full blast. I know. And the job not done yet.

26
00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:15,160
I'm very. That you're still working. So are leading. Gentlemen get gieger into.

27
00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:27,770
Thank you, Mira, for giving us the insight in your private library, portable private library.

28
00:03:27,770 --> 00:03:36,770
In the 19th century, the health of the public increased substantially by clean water,

29
00:03:36,770 --> 00:03:50,540
better hygiene and healthy food and enough of it that what is called the first revolution in health care in the 20th century.

30
00:03:50,540 --> 00:03:58,070
We had the professionalisation of medicine and great scientific breakthroughs on the clinics.

31
00:03:58,070 --> 00:04:10,580
It was the centre of the clinics and the doctors. What did 20th Century has not had in its vision is patients.

32
00:04:10,580 --> 00:04:18,530
That would understand. And could make informed decisions.

33
00:04:18,530 --> 00:04:25,580
Today in the 21st century,

34
00:04:25,580 --> 00:04:40,900
we are waiting for the third revolution in health care after the 20th century revolution that Miller and I called the century of the patient.

35
00:04:40,900 --> 00:04:52,050
That medicine makes a turn to Boland's having as its primary goal, the patient, not all the other things.

36
00:04:52,050 --> 00:05:01,630
And yet in modern high tech health care, patients appear to be the stumbling block.

37
00:05:01,630 --> 00:05:12,290
An uninformed, anxious, noncompliant folk with unhealthy lifestyles would demand treatments advertised by celebrities

38
00:05:12,290 --> 00:05:22,870
who insist on unnecessary but expensive imaging and may eventually turn into plaintiff's.

39
00:05:22,870 --> 00:05:28,620
The one solution proposed is new paternalism.

40
00:05:28,620 --> 00:05:35,340
Namely, nudge to patients where you want that they end up.

41
00:05:35,340 --> 00:05:39,150
I don't think we need more paternalism in the 21st century.

42
00:05:39,150 --> 00:05:54,330
We had enough in the past. There is a different vision, namely patients who are risk literate, who know where to find information that's reliable.

43
00:05:54,330 --> 00:06:00,350
And you can make informed decisions based on your own values.

44
00:06:00,350 --> 00:06:10,770
Grey and I got together in two thousand and nine on a workshop where we collected 40 people from medicine,

45
00:06:10,770 --> 00:06:23,790
psychology, computer science and statistics in order to discuss the possibility for such a third revolution.

46
00:06:23,790 --> 00:06:35,190
The outcome of that meeting is a book with the title Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions Envisioning Health 2020.

47
00:06:35,190 --> 00:06:49,140
Now, that's now looking back, we might have written better envisioning Healthcare 21 20.

48
00:06:49,140 --> 00:07:00,210
But Roger and I are a little bit on the optimistic side and impatient and wants to get things done.

49
00:07:00,210 --> 00:07:11,250
And we also believed that then 2009, the financial crisis would actually help to get this project done,

50
00:07:11,250 --> 00:07:20,800
because if there is less money, then the medical profession has time to think about the true.

51
00:07:20,800 --> 00:07:29,520
Virtue and the true goal, the patient now in this workshop,

52
00:07:29,520 --> 00:07:39,750
we analysed seven problems in health care that we believe need to be solved in

53
00:07:39,750 --> 00:07:48,840
order to get towards the centre of the patient and that are the seven problems.

54
00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:55,650
It's a simple calculation. You add them up and you get misinformed patients.

55
00:07:55,650 --> 00:08:10,950
You don't even need all of them. And what I'm going to do today is to go quickly to some of them and spend most of the time on the last one.

56
00:08:10,950 --> 00:08:22,080
And to give you the key essence is the good news is that our book is as timely and relevant as a decade ago.

57
00:08:22,080 --> 00:08:34,860
That's also the bad news. There is one thing I should add that we hadn't envisioned so 10 years ago.

58
00:08:34,860 --> 00:08:46,380
That is the impact of digital technology on health and the push of I.T. companies into health.

59
00:08:46,380 --> 00:08:54,000
We had somehow naively believed that digitalisation would help our cause.

60
00:08:54,000 --> 00:09:01,440
It would provide access for everyone to all the information relevant.

61
00:09:01,440 --> 00:09:11,530
Yet that hasn't happened. Just to illustrate on digital health records are a great idea.

62
00:09:11,530 --> 00:09:22,030
But. They will not be able to unfold their potential in current health systems.

63
00:09:22,030 --> 00:09:29,900
They are not falling on fertile ground. So one example in the US in 2005.

64
00:09:29,900 --> 00:09:44,330
The calculations by the rain corporations were that by having electronic health records, one could save eighty one billion every year.

65
00:09:44,330 --> 00:09:55,620
So, for instance, avoiding duplicate tests and having the information available and all the errors that come in.

66
00:09:55,620 --> 00:10:02,100
In 2013, they reviewed the situation and found that cost had not decreased.

67
00:10:02,100 --> 00:10:11,670
They had steeply increased. What had happened? The industry, the software industry had gained.

68
00:10:11,670 --> 00:10:21,370
The electronic health records that were made in the first place for billing, not for serving the patient.

69
00:10:21,370 --> 00:10:27,970
For instance, recommender systems were built in. That would recommend to doctor.

70
00:10:27,970 --> 00:10:32,050
Maybe you should do that. That test. Maybe a C.T.

71
00:10:32,050 --> 00:10:36,850
Maybe something else. And doctors sometime surrendered to that.

72
00:10:36,850 --> 00:10:44,830
Just to be on the safe side. And that was how the entire system was gamed.

73
00:10:44,830 --> 00:11:03,670
Or. There is another example is much funding has been invested OSes, something we did not foresee into big data analytics in health.

74
00:11:03,670 --> 00:11:14,230
You may remember I beams IBM's Watson into acting as Bob Dylan, Serena Williams and other celebrities.

75
00:11:14,230 --> 00:11:22,000
Lots of marketing. But does all of that help patients?

76
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:31,300
A systematic review last year of 58 articles on big data applications in genomics,

77
00:11:31,300 --> 00:11:38,080
drug discovery, personalised healthcare, precision medicine, mental health, oncology and so on.

78
00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:47,720
Concluded that there is no evidence of its practical benefits in health care.

79
00:11:47,720 --> 00:11:59,830
My personal conclusions on that no topic is the benefits of digitalisation can be read only if the existing problems, the seven sins.

80
00:11:59,830 --> 00:12:08,050
All resolved first, otherwise digital health will become a band aid solution.

81
00:12:08,050 --> 00:12:15,670
So how does our list fare today? So I will now go through some of these points.

82
00:12:15,670 --> 00:12:21,720
And as I've said, spent most of the time to the last one.

83
00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:27,790
Every one of these points in the book has a number of recommendations.

84
00:12:27,790 --> 00:12:32,130
I will cannot report all of that. I can't go into anything.

85
00:12:32,130 --> 00:12:36,210
I cannot present a systematic review of every these points.

86
00:12:36,210 --> 00:12:42,450
You can do that. You can write seven systematic reviews on each of these points, how it is now.

87
00:12:42,450 --> 00:12:53,100
But I will start with an example that is on the first point and illustrates the key problem.

88
00:12:53,100 --> 00:13:00,200
I use a very common example, namely breast cancer screening with mammography.

89
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:11,840
So in many countries, health institutions and doctors ask, how can we get more women into screening?

90
00:13:11,840 --> 00:13:20,110
Many countries set a certain goal like 80 percent in the UK.

91
00:13:20,110 --> 00:13:25,160
No deal. How would you do that? There are basically a number of options.

92
00:13:25,160 --> 00:13:30,930
One is strong paternalism. The president of Uruguay.

93
00:13:30,930 --> 00:13:39,080
Has installed mandatory breast cancer screening for all women who are in public service.

94
00:13:39,080 --> 00:13:43,870
That's a simple solution. It is not.

95
00:13:43,870 --> 00:13:49,510
One that makes people are risk literate or invest in countries.

96
00:13:49,510 --> 00:13:56,710
We have many attempts to nudge people into behaviour.

97
00:13:56,710 --> 00:14:07,210
So the nudge women into it by sending them a letter is a certain date or by giving them misleading information.

98
00:14:07,210 --> 00:14:12,070
That's also it. This is not our vision. Why not?

99
00:14:12,070 --> 00:14:19,200
Do something and inform women about the benefits and the harms.

100
00:14:19,200 --> 00:14:25,650
Of breast cancer screenings so that every women can make her own decision.

101
00:14:25,650 --> 00:14:30,880
That can be easily done. Here is a fact box.

102
00:14:30,880 --> 00:14:36,450
The fact box is from the Harding Centre for Risk Literacy, which I direct.

103
00:14:36,450 --> 00:14:45,900
It is called Harding Centre because it has been funded since twelve years by a London investment banker, David Harding.

104
00:14:45,900 --> 00:14:50,880
Things to his. He read one of my books called Reckoning with Risk.

105
00:14:50,880 --> 00:15:02,460
And as a investment banker, he knew that most other investment bankers and financial experts don't understand numbers.

106
00:15:02,460 --> 00:15:10,630
But he wasn't a beer. The doctors also are innumerate and churches and lawyers to.

107
00:15:10,630 --> 00:15:19,360
So he thought, oh, that's a case where I've spent my money. And by the way, in Cambridge, you're parked on your university.

108
00:15:19,360 --> 00:15:26,570
There is the Winton Centre for Risk Leaders and Evidence Communication, which is our sister institute.

109
00:15:26,570 --> 00:15:43,250
We are the only ones. And so a fact box takes all the available evidence in that case about randomised studies with about five hundred thousand women.

110
00:15:43,250 --> 00:15:49,740
But reports everything in simple, understandable numbers, no alterations.

111
00:15:49,740 --> 00:15:55,500
No relative risk or other misleading statistics. So how do you read that?

112
00:15:55,500 --> 00:16:02,820
So think about 1000 women who participate in screening, 1000 women who don't.

113
00:16:02,820 --> 00:16:09,010
They're all over 50. The question is, what happens 10 years later?

114
00:16:09,010 --> 00:16:17,560
And benefits. Breast cancer mortality. Five out of thousand died from breast cancer.

115
00:16:17,560 --> 00:16:23,700
And in this screening group, it's four.

116
00:16:23,700 --> 00:16:32,760
Then total cancer mortality is even more important because you don't know always from which cancer a person died.

117
00:16:32,760 --> 00:16:45,820
If she had multiple cancers and it's twenty one in each group that tells you there's no life saved from mammography screening.

118
00:16:45,820 --> 00:16:49,420
But one women. Less dies in the screening group.

119
00:16:49,420 --> 00:16:55,180
But one woman more dies in the screening for another cancer. And then there are harms.

120
00:16:55,180 --> 00:17:00,250
So women who do not have cancer, they are false positive.

121
00:17:00,250 --> 00:17:05,980
The test isn't good. And an estimated 50 to 200 are harmed.

122
00:17:05,980 --> 00:17:10,930
You will see here the harm numbers are all intervals.

123
00:17:10,930 --> 00:17:15,100
What's the reason? The focus of most medical research is on the benefits.

124
00:17:15,100 --> 00:17:21,160
Harms are not so taken so seriously. So we have no very precise estimates.

125
00:17:21,160 --> 00:17:23,890
And the second harm is for women who do have cancer.

126
00:17:23,890 --> 00:17:32,920
But the candidates non progressive that this they wouldn't even notice of that thing that happened to their cells in their lifetimes.

127
00:17:32,920 --> 00:17:44,380
And it shouldn't be called cancer, but it's detected and they get unnecessary lumpectomy, mastectomy or other kinds of treatments.

128
00:17:44,380 --> 00:17:50,280
So that's a fact box. That's the way one could transparently do it.

129
00:17:50,280 --> 00:18:03,130
And you can see many fat boxes under our website. And so you have an easy way to look into what evidence based medicine knows today.

130
00:18:03,130 --> 00:18:10,090
And they are being updated. So now let's go back to the question.

131
00:18:10,090 --> 00:18:17,740
How can we get women into. And we get more women into screening.

132
00:18:17,740 --> 00:18:22,140
This is not the proper question from my point of view.

133
00:18:22,140 --> 00:18:32,220
The proper question is how can be informed women and the men, that's the way to do it.

134
00:18:32,220 --> 00:18:36,780
So if you would push women into a screening, what would you do?

135
00:18:36,780 --> 00:18:42,440
You would not report about total cancer mortality. And that's.

136
00:18:42,440 --> 00:18:51,080
Find me a single healths brought to you where this fact is being reported.

137
00:18:51,080 --> 00:18:59,750
And how would you report the one in thousand difference in breast cancer mortality?

138
00:18:59,750 --> 00:19:08,880
So you might not say it's zero point one percent. But you might say there is a 20 percent.

139
00:19:08,880 --> 00:19:12,980
Reduction. Because it it's a relative risk.

140
00:19:12,980 --> 00:19:24,910
It sounds better, isn't it? And 20 percent reduction is often rounded up to 30 percent or more.

141
00:19:24,910 --> 00:19:32,180
Here. Developed NHS leaflet Breast Cancer Screening says breast screening has been

142
00:19:32,180 --> 00:19:37,310
shown to reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by around 35 percent.

143
00:19:37,310 --> 00:19:42,890
No absolute numbers. Given. That's a reduction from five to four.

144
00:19:42,890 --> 00:19:49,830
Rounded up. Or New Zealand comes up with 33 percent.

145
00:19:49,830 --> 00:19:57,750
The changes here to the NHS leaflet for England, so no longer a relative risk.

146
00:19:57,750 --> 00:20:02,580
But now it's absolute risk. How it should be. But look at the number.

147
00:20:02,580 --> 00:20:06,660
It's not one out of thousands of 200 in Germany.

148
00:20:06,660 --> 00:20:12,020
We had the same situation. So first.

149
00:20:12,020 --> 00:20:20,180
Long ago, women were just told what to do. Then one gave the number, but misleading numbers like 35 percent.

150
00:20:20,180 --> 00:20:31,580
Then we protest. Protests over years. And then finally, absolute numbers were given, but also one out of 200, not one thousand.

151
00:20:31,580 --> 00:20:35,640
I know the situation in Germany very well, and it's probably similar here.

152
00:20:35,640 --> 00:20:44,180
There was one fraction who wanted to increase participation rates and they were against reporting absolute numbers.

153
00:20:44,180 --> 00:20:49,010
And there was another fraction that we can't go on in the 21st century.

154
00:20:49,010 --> 00:20:54,080
And misleading women. We should be honest.

155
00:20:54,080 --> 00:21:03,140
And the agreement was, yes, we report absolute numbers, but higher numbers.

156
00:21:03,140 --> 00:21:07,010
In Germany, we have now gone beyond this phase.

157
00:21:07,010 --> 00:21:15,680
And the proper numbers, like one to two in in in Thousand Oaks or in the brochures are just an example.

158
00:21:15,680 --> 00:21:23,930
So what is the consequence of the misleading brochures on the thinking of women?

159
00:21:23,930 --> 00:21:29,440
What's the benefits of. Breast cancer screening does mammograms.

160
00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:39,120
We have done the first European wide study with a thousand British women and asked them so exactly the questions.

161
00:21:39,120 --> 00:21:43,390
So if a thousand women go, Feltham, don't go. What happens 10 years later?

162
00:21:43,390 --> 00:21:49,690
How many if you die from breast cancer and the proper?

163
00:21:49,690 --> 00:21:54,910
The best answer is one out of a thousand. And these are CHURMAN women here.

164
00:21:54,910 --> 00:22:00,250
What do you see? And less than one percent is aware of that.

165
00:22:00,250 --> 00:22:07,330
Most are always debated highly or have no idea.

166
00:22:07,330 --> 00:22:20,890
Are British women better informed? What do you think?

167
00:22:20,890 --> 00:22:28,720
Yes, it's more than hundred percent more in reality.

168
00:22:28,720 --> 00:22:37,490
You have a huge peak here in the UK and that's 20 percent.

169
00:22:37,490 --> 00:22:50,960
We had nine countries. Here's a question on your intuition about health systems, how they influenced their citizens.

170
00:22:50,960 --> 00:23:09,080
There was one country out of nine who stood up in the sense that they were much more people, many more people who had an estimate in the correct area.

171
00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:13,870
Which country is that? I'll give you two countries. So it's not Germany.

172
00:23:13,870 --> 00:23:21,710
You can't be worse. It's not the UK. The other countries will only be countries in in Europe.

173
00:23:21,710 --> 00:23:34,300
France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, the Austria, Poland and the European part of Russia.

174
00:23:34,300 --> 00:23:37,760
There's one country. Were good.

175
00:23:37,760 --> 00:23:43,270
Definitely more correct. Angel standing all of the OSes.

176
00:23:43,270 --> 00:23:52,990
What do you think the Netherlands is everyone's guess who is informed about the health system because they have a very good health system.

177
00:23:52,990 --> 00:23:59,530
But no, in terms of screening, the population is equally misled.

178
00:23:59,530 --> 00:24:10,960
Do you have another case? Russia right here, you see the and it holds both for women and for men.

179
00:24:10,960 --> 00:24:20,980
So the realistic estimates, everything unrealistic is an order, an order of magnitude or two orders of magnitude too high.

180
00:24:20,980 --> 00:24:28,440
The reason is not that Russians get more information about screening than.

181
00:24:28,440 --> 00:24:42,320
All the rest of Europe. The reason is probably they get less information and less mis leading information.

182
00:24:42,320 --> 00:24:51,350
On this issue about the biased reporting health pamphlets, there is a positive news in Germany.

183
00:24:51,350 --> 00:25:05,090
We have succeeded to have in the National Cancer Plan a clear statement that and Germany is moving now away from.

184
00:25:05,090 --> 00:25:18,110
I read the goal of informed participatory decision making is now ranked higher than the goal of a maximum participation rate in cancer screening.

185
00:25:18,110 --> 00:25:27,800
That's a very clear and honest statement which says before we were not our primary goal was not to inform women.

186
00:25:27,800 --> 00:25:38,790
Now it is. That's a brave statement. And it's still difficult to push it through against all the interests and also.

187
00:25:38,790 --> 00:25:53,490
Against the emotions of many patients. Who feel that some, particularly the US many women, feel a cancer screening is a moral obligation.

188
00:25:53,490 --> 00:25:58,770
If you don't do it, your friends will not loan or talk to you.

189
00:25:58,770 --> 00:26:10,310
They are brainwashed. And it takes all the courage to take over responsibility about your own health yourself.

190
00:26:10,310 --> 00:26:17,930
But medical science gives you a good key to make correct decisions.

191
00:26:17,930 --> 00:26:25,000
And sometimes if you understand the health system.

192
00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:30,620
Then you understand you need to think yourself.

193
00:26:30,620 --> 00:26:34,490
Because you are in health systems that are more or less depending on the country.

194
00:26:34,490 --> 00:26:42,550
Profit Liftin. And not in your interest. So let's go on.

195
00:26:42,550 --> 00:26:50,830
I'll go quickly biased reporting in the media compared to the first point, in my opinion.

196
00:26:50,830 --> 00:26:53,270
Not much has changed.

197
00:26:53,270 --> 00:27:03,730
And we have a new problem, the social media, which increases the variance totally of reports, biased reporting in medical journals.

198
00:27:03,730 --> 00:27:13,830
I did a cheque for this talk. And here is here are two of the recommendations that you and I gave.

199
00:27:13,830 --> 00:27:18,780
So every of these points has a number of recommendations. The first one was Trudel.

200
00:27:18,780 --> 00:27:28,050
Editors should clearly announce that evidence framed in relative risk because our baselines mismatch framing five year survival rates was cleaning.

201
00:27:28,050 --> 00:27:33,310
And as a non-transparent, transparent formats will no longer be published.

202
00:27:33,310 --> 00:27:35,890
I will explain this format in a minute.

203
00:27:35,890 --> 00:27:43,150
And also, institutions that subscribe to mitigate journals should give journals publishers two years to implement the previous action.

204
00:27:43,150 --> 00:27:48,910
And if publishers do not comply, cancel their subscription.

205
00:27:48,910 --> 00:27:59,140
We thought it's a brilliant idea. But not much has his head.

206
00:27:59,140 --> 00:28:05,630
And I'll show you here just an example before better doctors.

207
00:28:05,630 --> 00:28:19,310
There was an article. That had analysed 119 systematic reviews in the BMJ, the British Medical Journal in JAMA, in The Lancet between 2004 and 2006.

208
00:28:19,310 --> 00:28:23,750
Absolute risks. That are easy to understand.

209
00:28:23,750 --> 00:28:29,770
Well reported in only 50 percent of the reviews.

210
00:28:29,770 --> 00:28:35,590
Or similar numbers like number needed to treat mismatch framing.

211
00:28:35,590 --> 00:28:41,650
Is the idea that you report numbers for benefits and harms.

212
00:28:41,650 --> 00:28:48,960
But your report, absolute risk for the one and relatives for the other one case.

213
00:28:48,960 --> 00:29:00,010
How how would you do that? How would you report the benefits in the relative when absolute numbers in the relative because they're a big item.

214
00:29:00,010 --> 00:29:05,470
And how do you report in the same article as the harms in absolute numbers?

215
00:29:05,470 --> 00:29:13,540
Because there's also that was the case in 30 percent of the articles.

216
00:29:13,540 --> 00:29:20,110
That means misleading statistics starts, not risk lists.

217
00:29:20,110 --> 00:29:27,910
It starts already in the top medical journals and of course, in press releases.

218
00:29:27,910 --> 00:29:34,870
Has that changed after better doctors? I found two large studies.

219
00:29:34,870 --> 00:29:40,570
One was about two hundred and two systematic reviews, including about half of the Cochrane reviews.

220
00:29:40,570 --> 00:29:53,050
The best evidence bases. We have absolute risk reporting that only 30 thinks of these reviews for the most relevant patient outcome.

221
00:29:53,050 --> 00:29:57,060
So. There's no improvement here.

222
00:29:57,060 --> 00:30:06,280
And and this is so they looked at 55 guideline recommendations, an absolute risk for benefits and harms reported in 31 percent.

223
00:30:06,280 --> 00:30:13,050
I can't not detect. Hear that anything has improved.

224
00:30:13,050 --> 00:30:16,650
And it's very clear why it's being done.

225
00:30:16,650 --> 00:30:28,080
Because in these days, journals and journal editors think about how they're represented in the media, including the social media.

226
00:30:28,080 --> 00:30:37,260
And if you have a news that you have a drug that reduces heart attack by 50 percent, that has a chance to go and fly.

227
00:30:37,260 --> 00:30:48,750
But if you say, oh, it reduces mortality from heart attack from two hundred to one in hundred, that means one percentage point doesn't fly.

228
00:30:48,750 --> 00:30:54,830
And people are still innumerate to fall into this trap.

229
00:30:54,830 --> 00:31:02,430
The Enlightenment is far away. So back.

230
00:31:02,430 --> 00:31:05,730
Biased funding of research.

231
00:31:05,730 --> 00:31:13,620
Is the problem that research being funded, that's in the interest of the industry, but not in the interests of the patient?

232
00:31:13,620 --> 00:31:22,860
Typical example, meat, two trucks. The drug already exists, but the company wants to have another one to sell it to.

233
00:31:22,860 --> 00:31:32,490
That's of little help to patients. One of our recommendations was that research should be funded.

234
00:31:32,490 --> 00:31:45,240
That helps to understand the causes of lack of risk literacy amongst doctors, health care providers and patients.

235
00:31:45,240 --> 00:31:58,240
That has also not happened. A great example is, do you know health news reviews, dot org, health news reviews, dot org, garish bitzer,

236
00:31:58,240 --> 00:32:07,560
a Web site that exists since more than 10 years, which has 10 criteria on which media reports about health are rated.

237
00:32:07,560 --> 00:32:12,300
For instance, today mentioned the funding source.

238
00:32:12,300 --> 00:32:16,530
Do they report about harms and not only about benefits?

239
00:32:16,530 --> 00:32:22,530
Do they report in the same currency and so on? That's a great institution.

240
00:32:22,530 --> 00:32:26,910
They are struggling with getting funding.

241
00:32:26,910 --> 00:32:36,900
There have been partially closed down for these important things that make people smart in a smart role.

242
00:32:36,900 --> 00:32:46,850
There's almost no funding. The the the my personal story is hiding something similar.

243
00:32:46,850 --> 00:32:52,450
Now, the funding by David Harding is running out and we are struggling to find.

244
00:32:52,450 --> 00:33:03,400
Any source, if he would produce a drug that already exists and just market it, that would be great.

245
00:33:03,400 --> 00:33:20,410
And but funding to that helps doctors and patients understand the evidence is still not running, commercial conflicts of interest is very clear.

246
00:33:20,410 --> 00:33:31,210
We are suffering lots amongst them. On the defensive medicine means that doctors do not advise you the best.

247
00:33:31,210 --> 00:33:39,940
They believe it's for you. But something second or third base that protects them from you as a potential plaintiff being sued.

248
00:33:39,940 --> 00:33:50,080
That's the way the American system is most supportive for defensive medicine.

249
00:33:50,080 --> 00:34:00,790
And in every study where doctors ask whether they perform defensive medicine, more than 90 percent of the doctors say yes and have no chance.

250
00:34:00,790 --> 00:34:06,040
I can't do the best medicine for our patients. So what they do then?

251
00:34:06,040 --> 00:34:14,080
Unnecessary city's unnecessary. A Martys and anything he's done or India biotics.

252
00:34:14,080 --> 00:34:20,440
That's the problem, which is also not lost. No, I'm spending the rest on the last issue.

253
00:34:20,440 --> 00:34:26,980
Doctors lack of understanding health statistics. That's probably the least known problem.

254
00:34:26,980 --> 00:34:35,130
You may rightly think that your doctor is trained to understand evidence.

255
00:34:35,130 --> 00:34:39,990
Mm hmm. Have you ever checked it? Ask your doctor.

256
00:34:39,990 --> 00:34:43,540
So I will talk about collective risk literacy.

257
00:34:43,540 --> 00:34:51,730
The term means that patients, doctors, journalists, politicians and many Aussies.

258
00:34:51,730 --> 00:35:01,180
Have never learnt to understand evidence and can be easily tricked, like was the relative risk that he saw before.

259
00:35:01,180 --> 00:35:09,250
I'm going now to another famous concept, its five year survival rates.

260
00:35:09,250 --> 00:35:19,960
Let's start with Rudy Giuliani. When he was running for president of the United States, Giuliani said, I had prostate cancer five, six years ago.

261
00:35:19,960 --> 00:35:28,150
My chances of surviving prostate cancer and thank God I was cured of it in the US, 82 percent.

262
00:35:28,150 --> 00:35:35,560
My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialised medicine.

263
00:35:35,560 --> 00:35:42,550
That's what you got. And he proved here that American commercialised his impro.

264
00:35:42,550 --> 00:35:47,380
Profit is just better. It's free market. England, wake up.

265
00:35:47,380 --> 00:35:59,980
Give up your NHS. You might not like that, but eighty two is more than 44, isn't it?

266
00:35:59,980 --> 00:36:07,550
Rudy Giuliani misled the public and probably himself.

267
00:36:07,550 --> 00:36:14,430
The fact is that differences in survival rates, say, between the US and the UK.

268
00:36:14,430 --> 00:36:19,550
Don't correlate at all with differences, mortality rates.

269
00:36:19,550 --> 00:36:26,810
And at that time, the mortality from prostate cancer was about the same in England as in the US.

270
00:36:26,810 --> 00:36:35,350
How can it be that mortality is basically the same? But five year survival rates are so different.

271
00:36:35,350 --> 00:36:42,100
Because five year survival rates don't tell you anything about mortality.

272
00:36:42,100 --> 00:36:50,470
That's the nice thing. And why is this? It's easy to understand the first reasons lead time bias.

273
00:36:50,470 --> 00:37:00,930
So think about a group of men that has terminal prostate cancer or go or invasive prostate cancer.

274
00:37:00,930 --> 00:37:06,520
They all die at age 70. Half of this group doesn't go screening.

275
00:37:06,520 --> 00:37:17,890
The other half goes screening. So those who do not go screening, then prostate cancer is detected late, say age 67.

276
00:37:17,890 --> 00:37:23,490
They die at age 70. What is the five year survival rate? Zero.

277
00:37:23,490 --> 00:37:29,200
Clear. The other group, gun screening.

278
00:37:29,200 --> 00:37:33,340
Prostate cancer is detected the age 60, they die at age 70.

279
00:37:33,340 --> 00:37:39,980
What is the five year survival rate? I know percent got it.

280
00:37:39,980 --> 00:37:48,280
The trick, second reason, overdiagnosis. Again, two groups go screening, don't go screaming.

281
00:37:48,280 --> 00:37:53,510
So we the people, the who do not go screening.

282
00:37:53,510 --> 00:37:58,190
So was Prokosch. If prostate cancer five years later. Forty four.

283
00:37:58,190 --> 00:38:01,850
Forty four percent of them are alive. The others died.

284
00:38:01,850 --> 00:38:09,170
So the five year survival rate is 44 percent. Now those who go screening.

285
00:38:09,170 --> 00:38:18,580
So it's not only that progressive cancers are detected, but many more non progressive cancers.

286
00:38:18,580 --> 00:38:29,330
So there's this is, again, a cancer that you will never bother you in your life, you will die with the cancer, not from it.

287
00:38:29,330 --> 00:38:37,290
If your name. And lucky to live into old age, it's almost certain that you have prostate cancer.

288
00:38:37,290 --> 00:38:41,940
It's a good news because that's. Desired effect.

289
00:38:41,940 --> 00:38:55,280
You good old. There are estimates that amongst 80 year olds, 80 percent have prostate cancer, but only three percent die.

290
00:38:55,280 --> 00:39:00,190
So. So here's the calculation.

291
00:39:00,190 --> 00:39:10,240
Men with screening. Now, these two thousand in this example was non progressive prostate cancer.

292
00:39:10,240 --> 00:39:17,500
They, by definition, don't die, but they enter the numerator and the denominator and outcomes.

293
00:39:17,500 --> 00:39:22,400
Rudy Giuliani's number. See the trick?

294
00:39:22,400 --> 00:39:33,540
So the key to understand is that five year survival rates are measured from the beginning of the diagnosis and in screening, the diagnosis is only.

295
00:39:33,540 --> 00:39:38,790
That's what the game was or not. You live longer.

296
00:39:38,790 --> 00:39:45,570
And now the question is, do physicians understand?

297
00:39:45,570 --> 00:39:50,140
Or would they fall prey to Rudy Giuliani's argument?

298
00:39:50,140 --> 00:39:55,470
We have tested. We've done the first study was German physicians.

299
00:39:55,470 --> 00:40:07,980
So sixty five physicians have given them the the actual data from one of the big randomised trials, but not mentioned prostate cancer, just cancer.

300
00:40:07,980 --> 00:40:14,820
So they have no prejudice. And then giving them is a differences in survival rates like Rudy Giuliani did.

301
00:40:14,820 --> 00:40:18,590
And then. Ninety seven percent. No.

302
00:40:18,590 --> 00:40:25,070
Seventy nine percent. Church screening is effective, although they don't tell you anything.

303
00:40:25,070 --> 00:40:29,760
The difference is here. And if there were and mortality rates only five percent.

304
00:40:29,760 --> 00:40:40,380
That means we can. Direct the opinion of doctors of seventy five or three quarters of doctors in any direction about screening,

305
00:40:40,380 --> 00:40:48,930
depending on how we frame the success, is survival or mortality rates.

306
00:40:48,930 --> 00:40:56,230
When we are asking about lead time bias, only two of sixty five. Understood.

307
00:40:56,230 --> 00:41:03,180
You all very bitter and overdiagnosis.

308
00:41:03,180 --> 00:41:13,290
Are American doctors better? We did the first study with no representative sample of four hundred twelve primary care

309
00:41:13,290 --> 00:41:21,840
physicians and basically the same result when the information was provided in survival rates.

310
00:41:21,840 --> 00:41:33,180
Just like Rudy Giuliani, then 83 percent judged the mortality benefit as large, although they should say it doesn't tell me anything.

311
00:41:33,180 --> 00:41:40,550
And when he was present, the mortality rates than. Many, many, more or less.

312
00:41:40,550 --> 00:41:50,550
It's higher than the Trumans because the Americans tend to do something. And also, more on the pressure of defensive fighters in the.

313
00:41:50,550 --> 00:41:59,940
We also asked with a screen to take the Kansas if a bitter five year survival was visit there, proves that cancer screening tests saves lives.

314
00:41:59,940 --> 00:42:05,400
And the same number three quarter thought. Yes. And mortality rates.

315
00:42:05,400 --> 00:42:10,350
The correct answer is 80. About the same. Eighty one percent thought.

316
00:42:10,350 --> 00:42:14,220
Yes. And there are almost 20 percent who don't even know that.

317
00:42:14,220 --> 00:42:24,630
What surprised us most was the answers to the number two question, which proves that a cancer screening test saves lives.

318
00:42:24,630 --> 00:42:30,110
More cancers are detected in screening population. That doesn't prove anything.

319
00:42:30,110 --> 00:42:35,600
But almost half of the doctor things and other studies since then have just replicated.

320
00:42:35,600 --> 00:42:44,910
If you just detect something, then you save life. So.

321
00:42:44,910 --> 00:42:52,800
The situation as I see them is that in this respect, not much has changed.

322
00:42:52,800 --> 00:43:04,240
Doctors are equally uninformed about understanding health statistics as 10 years ago.

323
00:43:04,240 --> 00:43:09,310
And they will later come. The reason of that, let me first.

324
00:43:09,310 --> 00:43:18,910
As soon as a question, do politicians understand health statistics and we already hit Rudy Giuliani, is he the only one?

325
00:43:18,910 --> 00:43:24,510
How about the U.K.? Here's another case.

326
00:43:24,510 --> 00:43:31,680
The UK Office of National Statistics noted that five year survival rates for colon cancer was 60 percent in the US,

327
00:43:31,680 --> 00:43:43,900
compared to only thirty five percent in Britain. Experts called this finding disgraceful and asked for a doubling of government spending.

328
00:43:43,900 --> 00:43:54,380
Now, in response, Tony Blair set the target to increase survival rates by 20 percent over the next 10 years, saying we don't match other countries.

329
00:43:54,380 --> 00:44:01,840
It's that colon cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment. He has been misled in the same way.

330
00:44:01,840 --> 00:44:07,990
And the target to increase survival rates by 20 percent is through screening.

331
00:44:07,990 --> 00:44:16,650
You get it automatically without any benefit to patients.

332
00:44:16,650 --> 00:44:28,960
There is a May 20 years later announced her cancer strategy and again, foot fell prey to the survival rate story.

333
00:44:28,960 --> 00:44:33,490
She said survival rates are increasing, but we are lagging behind other countries.

334
00:44:33,490 --> 00:44:41,680
Same thing like the US. The US pushes everyone to screenings where they get the big survival rates but not pay the mortality rates.

335
00:44:41,680 --> 00:44:50,460
And then the five year survival rates for bowel cancer, all over 90 percent of caught early, but less than 10 percent if diagnosed late.

336
00:44:50,460 --> 00:44:59,620
And so either by twenty twenty eight, fifty five thousand more people will be alive five years after they're diagnosed.

337
00:44:59,620 --> 00:45:13,190
That's her goal here. You just screened them. You get it automatically. What you need is better politicians.

338
00:45:13,190 --> 00:45:23,630
So now let's go into digital technology and the big data analysis that I mentioned before,

339
00:45:23,630 --> 00:45:32,840
that I'm not aware that there are many applications of big data analysis that actually help patients.

340
00:45:32,840 --> 00:45:41,900
But there are many stories and much of funding goes goes in it, which we could use elsewhere.

341
00:45:41,900 --> 00:45:52,670
So you may remember that Microsoft engineers wanted to predict pancreas cancer.

342
00:45:52,670 --> 00:46:09,980
So imagine you are on. So on being on Microsoft's Web site and you are working on a brilliant text and suddenly a window pops up but says attention.

343
00:46:09,980 --> 00:46:15,830
You may have pancreatic cancer visit immediately, your doctor.

344
00:46:15,830 --> 00:46:20,860
How do you feel? Can you ignore that?

345
00:46:20,860 --> 00:46:26,200
No. You go to your doctor. No, that's.

346
00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:31,750
I've written about that in the BMJ. How did they argue?

347
00:46:31,750 --> 00:46:36,610
They argued it could increase five year survival rates.

348
00:46:36,610 --> 00:46:45,400
Of course, it will increase for survival rate, but they build it up because we have no cure for pancreas cancer.

349
00:46:45,400 --> 00:46:52,060
It's another distraction to real problems. And there were a number of other misleading screening.

350
00:46:52,060 --> 00:46:57,180
The New York Times, by the way, reported that evely that quote,

351
00:46:57,180 --> 00:47:03,130
The study suggested early screening can increase the five year survival rate of patients

352
00:47:03,130 --> 00:47:10,690
with pancreatic cancer from five to seven to five to seven from just three percent.

353
00:47:10,690 --> 00:47:19,960
That also didn't get it. Journalists still have no training in understanding health statistics.

354
00:47:19,960 --> 00:47:30,350
And that's not the only case. So many other I.T. companies tried to prove their relevance by moving into the health care.

355
00:47:30,350 --> 00:47:35,370
So Googling flu has also used search terms to predict the flu.

356
00:47:35,370 --> 00:47:48,090
It all fall that we have shown that by Googling flu had 50 million search terms and and the complex Ikarus was a

357
00:47:48,090 --> 00:47:59,730
hundred sixty selected search terms and they tested hundreds of millions of models and and predicting the flu.

358
00:47:59,730 --> 00:48:07,470
So here's the short answer. A, I works in a stable world, and here's where the successes are.

359
00:48:07,470 --> 00:48:18,270
Chess go jeopardy. But it has huge difficulties to deal with an unstable world that's dynamic where things change.

360
00:48:18,270 --> 00:48:28,920
The flu changes all the time. People are unpredictable. What they do in this in this world is, well, complexity doesn't work.

361
00:48:28,920 --> 00:48:34,110
We have shown that if you use a single data point.

362
00:48:34,110 --> 00:48:39,210
You can predict the flu better than this big data, but that's another story.

363
00:48:39,210 --> 00:48:49,740
I'm not talking about my research on heuristics here. So those questions, do medical students learn to understand health statistics?

364
00:48:49,740 --> 00:49:02,840
And I will now show you one of the reasons for all of this mess is that thinking is not taught in medical school, with very few exceptions.

365
00:49:02,840 --> 00:49:13,550
And we have developed a test that tests 10 elementary concepts, just concepts.

366
00:49:13,550 --> 00:49:22,940
A test makes two errors. As you can overlook something and the rate is a miss rate or sensitivity, it's called.

367
00:49:22,940 --> 00:49:32,950
Or it can. The so the sensitivity is now one minus, miss.

368
00:49:32,950 --> 00:49:37,930
And or it can create a false alarm.

369
00:49:37,930 --> 00:49:41,970
And that's measured by the false alarm rate. What is specificity is one minus.

370
00:49:41,970 --> 00:49:48,430
False alarm rate not be difficult. All of the cons of what is a relative is absolute.

371
00:49:48,430 --> 00:49:53,260
It's 10 questions like that. Actually, a few of that.

372
00:49:53,260 --> 00:50:00,820
These are the first six. A test sensitivity is a central criterion for its quality as a diagnostic tool.

373
00:50:00,820 --> 00:50:10,270
The sensitivity is now for alternatives and the student need just to find the right one.

374
00:50:10,270 --> 00:50:18,100
So these stars are not there in the test. Therefore, you add a sensitivity proportion of people with a positive test result.

375
00:50:18,100 --> 00:50:25,510
Amongst those who are sick and it's not a proportion of people, it is a negative test results amongst those sick.

376
00:50:25,510 --> 00:50:30,230
Every medical student and doctor should know that as well.

377
00:50:30,230 --> 00:50:36,360
You cannot read any report about a new test, even digital test.

378
00:50:36,360 --> 00:50:41,290
The test specifically, same questions, same possible answers.

379
00:50:41,290 --> 00:50:47,290
And so it goes on. Quite simple things to do.

380
00:50:47,290 --> 00:50:55,810
I show, you know, the results of the final year medical students at the charity in Berlin.

381
00:50:55,810 --> 00:51:02,560
The charity is one of Europe's light houses and medicine.

382
00:51:02,560 --> 00:51:10,330
And every student should get a hundred percent on this test because these are so elementary questions.

383
00:51:10,330 --> 00:51:16,540
It's not about an interval. It's not about auto ratio or anything like that.

384
00:51:16,540 --> 00:51:22,930
You what body get the red line is what you get expect by chance.

385
00:51:22,930 --> 00:51:27,580
On average, the students get 50 percent correct.

386
00:51:27,580 --> 00:51:33,130
And you get already 25 percent. By closing your eyes and just pointing.

387
00:51:33,130 --> 00:51:38,500
So what's the specificity? 20 percent don't know that.

388
00:51:38,500 --> 00:51:45,700
What's the story? The sensitivity. What's the specificity? 30 percent don't know that at the end of the studies.

389
00:51:45,700 --> 00:51:49,870
What's the positive predictive value? 40 percent don't know that.

390
00:51:49,870 --> 00:51:53,650
What's the negative politically for almost 50 percent? Those noted.

391
00:51:53,650 --> 00:52:01,870
And so it goes on. What we have talked before are the relative risk versus upper low risk.

392
00:52:01,870 --> 00:52:06,760
So then it's only 20 percent who don't know even that.

393
00:52:06,760 --> 00:52:15,110
And the mortality rate was the survival rate. That's even below chains and lead-time buyers and over Gopinath.

394
00:52:15,110 --> 00:52:19,980
Right now, these students are not prepared.

395
00:52:19,980 --> 00:52:31,740
To read and critically evaluate or even understand an article in their own field, almost all of medicine is about statistics.

396
00:52:31,740 --> 00:52:37,340
And if that's exactly what's not being taught, then we are failing.

397
00:52:37,340 --> 00:52:43,150
And then we are not. Don't have to be surprised. Why do doctors don't notice?

398
00:52:43,150 --> 00:52:47,800
Now, here is now two hypotheses as why this happens.

399
00:52:47,800 --> 00:52:59,300
One hypothesis is that students, after many years of medical training, they have unlearnt thinking.

400
00:52:59,300 --> 00:53:07,750
The other one is. In this many years of medical training, they've never learnt, never been taught that.

401
00:53:07,750 --> 00:53:15,370
So we did two tests that a short 90 minute test after these the same students.

402
00:53:15,370 --> 00:53:22,030
That included concepts and techniques to be developmental, to make this easier.

403
00:53:22,030 --> 00:53:26,780
And here's the result. Now they're on a level of 90 percent.

404
00:53:26,780 --> 00:53:34,430
So it's not that some of these Miss Riot. It's just simply that nobody teaches them.

405
00:53:34,430 --> 00:53:39,950
And here this is a US study I've done with professors of medicine.

406
00:53:39,950 --> 00:53:46,190
They should have more than a hundred percent, right? There are only up 75 percent on the road.

407
00:53:46,190 --> 00:53:50,930
And finally, how can we help? And I'll be brief here.

408
00:53:50,930 --> 00:53:57,980
Fat boxes. And here's a fact box about with a influenza vaccination helps.

409
00:53:57,980 --> 00:54:08,350
Here's a fact. Books about ovarian cancer screening. It is fact boxes are available on tablets, on smartphones with the AOC.

410
00:54:08,350 --> 00:54:17,720
That's the largest German health insurer. And at the end, here is where we want to be.

411
00:54:17,720 --> 00:54:25,850
These are the seven points we need to solve. And I hope that someone of you at some point can the report we are there.

412
00:54:25,850 --> 00:54:36,050
So I was talking today about risk literacy. Many doctors, students, politicians and journalists and patients still don't understand health statistics.

413
00:54:36,050 --> 00:54:44,960
We need to do something about that. And we also need clean information, fact boxes, not misleading statistics.

414
00:54:44,960 --> 00:54:53,060
And at the end, the benefits of digitalisation can not be reaped if we don't solve the existing problems.

415
00:54:53,060 --> 00:55:12,570
Thank you for your attention. The evidence is that better the speaker, the more your mind is engaged.

416
00:55:12,570 --> 00:55:22,920
So I let you know to turn to your neighbour for two minutes and pick out some important things for you and for medicine and health care.

417
00:55:22,920 --> 00:55:55,730
There will be some question comments. OK. Talk to your neighbour. Introduce yourself who you have met before and said.

418
00:55:55,730 --> 00:56:32,790
That's. If I stop talking right questions and they were our suggestions for action.

419
00:56:32,790 --> 00:56:37,550
Yes, this they say, what what are you, a medical student or a doctor or statistician?

420
00:56:37,550 --> 00:56:44,140
Hi. Before we start, I'm going to use the microphone and just say just to let you all know that you're being filmed live webcast.

421
00:56:44,140 --> 00:56:50,850
So please bear that in mind when answering your question. And please wait for the microphone.

422
00:56:50,850 --> 00:56:57,370
Yes. Thanks very much for the talk. I'm a mathematical modeller up at the hitting thing medical campus.

423
00:56:57,370 --> 00:57:04,300
I was curious about this, the understanding of five year survival rates amongst doctors and was curious if you've

424
00:57:04,300 --> 00:57:10,230
looked at a control group of UK or US statisticians and seen what the understanding is.

425
00:57:10,230 --> 00:57:16,900
And there is a as a suitable comparison. I haven't studied the UK statisticians.

426
00:57:16,900 --> 00:57:18,190
You can do that.

427
00:57:18,190 --> 00:57:33,460
I worked very closely with David Spiegelhalter and he surely understands that, say more statisticians who like to be hands up a greater statistician.

428
00:57:33,460 --> 00:57:40,000
We make up to you. There we go. Yes, hi. I'm actually a medical science communicator.

429
00:57:40,000 --> 00:57:44,440
So why spend my time talking about these? I'm actually curious about something.

430
00:57:44,440 --> 00:57:49,570
Why do you think mortality rate is something that is so misunderstood?

431
00:57:49,570 --> 00:57:57,080
Because it's not exactly very different. Very difficult. If you keep having very low rates of spending.

432
00:57:57,080 --> 00:58:05,360
Please keep the graph, Sordi. One reason is that mortality rates are in these examples I cited not being reported.

433
00:58:05,360 --> 00:58:12,590
Only survival rates. And the reason is because there is typically almost no difference in mortality rates.

434
00:58:12,590 --> 00:58:17,270
But then you're always going to report a difference in survival rates.

435
00:58:17,270 --> 00:58:24,920
And if you have the Microsoft application, you target survival rates because you will win.

436
00:58:24,920 --> 00:58:26,600
That's one of the reasons.

437
00:58:26,600 --> 00:58:37,580
The other reasons, of course, that the medical schools I know they're not teaching these health statistics, and that's the most surprising thing.

438
00:58:37,580 --> 00:58:46,780
I have had conversations with heads of medical schools, including the last three CEOs of the charity.

439
00:58:46,780 --> 00:58:50,980
And showed him always what's happening on the own universities.

440
00:58:50,980 --> 00:58:55,480
If you think anything. Would have happened?

441
00:58:55,480 --> 00:59:02,260
No. Two students at the charity have now found in a work group on risk literacy.

442
00:59:02,260 --> 00:59:12,030
They want to learn it. Their professors. Mostly this interested.

443
00:59:12,030 --> 00:59:19,460
People want to land pipetting. I think that the key thing in medical schools are focus on laboratories.

444
00:59:19,460 --> 00:59:33,300
Hi. I am a medical doctor and I was wondering if you have data on the accuracy of clinicians for identifying the how close the patients there are.

445
00:59:33,300 --> 00:59:41,640
They are about to prescribe an intervention to is similar to the piece of evidence where that prescription come from.

446
00:59:41,640 --> 00:59:48,450
To put an example. We know that Trumbull's is for people who have an acute stroke.

447
00:59:48,450 --> 00:59:56,010
The more you deviate from the inclusion criteria of this study that prove a benefit, the more harm you do and the less benefits you get.

448
00:59:56,010 --> 01:00:07,000
And in the 10 concepts in the test you showed, I think it would be very interesting and very relevant to see how accurate doctors are to identify.

449
01:00:07,000 --> 01:00:15,340
Is these patients like the ones in the study that prove the benefit I am trying to transmit.

450
01:00:15,340 --> 01:00:18,360
You have to you. Have you ever looked into that?

451
01:00:18,360 --> 01:00:28,200
You make an important point, namely that doctors have to evaluate whether even if they know the evidence base,

452
01:00:28,200 --> 01:00:32,340
was it the patient fits to that population being studied?

453
01:00:32,340 --> 01:00:41,650
Yes. The problem is that I pointed out that most doctors cannot even understand the evidence base.

454
01:00:41,650 --> 01:00:44,550
And that's the next question that would come.

455
01:00:44,550 --> 01:00:52,890
I don't have conducted and don't know specific studies to this process of innovation, but it's an important point.

456
01:00:52,890 --> 01:01:01,800
It shows the evidence based medicine, as I understand it, can not be just knowing randomised trials.

457
01:01:01,800 --> 01:01:10,740
But you need a judgement whether this trial actually fits with the patients that you have.

458
01:01:10,740 --> 01:01:15,450
There are always something a bit big, give your base what you know.

459
01:01:15,450 --> 01:01:22,790
But you still need clinical lots of experience, even gut feelings.

460
01:01:22,790 --> 01:01:28,130
I'm also hoping somebody will be saying a little about what they're doing to tackle these problems with the economy or others.

461
01:01:28,130 --> 01:01:35,720
But, you know, anyone in the audience doing things, they tried to make the world less bad.

462
01:01:35,720 --> 01:01:41,800
I'm always cautious about trying to make things better, but to make things less bad. Yep.

463
01:01:41,800 --> 01:01:45,140
Yeah. Oh, sorry. You are. Yes. I get these guys. Hello.

464
01:01:45,140 --> 01:01:55,910
I'm for the purposes of this, a patient in the U.K., there's a strong push towards patient participation in decisions.

465
01:01:55,910 --> 01:02:08,990
And I have seen quite a bit of conflict where the doctor is struggling to get their point across based on their knowledge versus,

466
01:02:08,990 --> 01:02:13,520
say, the patient's been influenced by Dr Google to a certain extent.

467
01:02:13,520 --> 01:02:20,510
I mean, how do you find the fact boxes help the doctors and the patients with those conversations?

468
01:02:20,510 --> 01:02:26,300
My experience that, in fact, boxes help both sides to get the evidence.

469
01:02:26,300 --> 01:02:38,270
The problem is that the ideal of informed consent cannot happen if patients and many doctors don't understand the evidence.

470
01:02:38,270 --> 01:02:40,310
It's a total illusion.

471
01:02:40,310 --> 01:02:55,470
Also Mirrors Wonderful programme of Value-Based requires that someone understands what the evidence is as it was not getting for Andy and on.

472
01:02:55,470 --> 01:03:09,930
Today, in the many, many patients, probably most look for information in the Internet about health and what you find if you cheque on a certain issue.

473
01:03:09,930 --> 01:03:16,500
Take a screening study is just a wonderful place for misleading information.

474
01:03:16,500 --> 01:03:19,490
I have. I gave her in California.

475
01:03:19,490 --> 01:03:29,600
I talk to a large medical department and looked before what I did on the Internet about, say, mammography screening on the first page.

476
01:03:29,600 --> 01:03:38,270
This is where most people start and end on the first page, the baby with 10 or doesn't articles.

477
01:03:38,270 --> 01:03:49,490
All of them were misleading. Was one exception. There was to be Expedia in three in English and and we had edited it all.

478
01:03:49,490 --> 01:03:55,760
Others were driven by other interests in getting women into screening, making money,

479
01:03:55,760 --> 01:04:04,990
defensive decision making, all things that do not help you as patient factually as I did leading it right.

480
01:04:04,990 --> 01:04:10,310
It did well course coming down the tracks in lung cancer screening,

481
01:04:10,310 --> 01:04:17,350
which is a major issue, which being in a year's time, we'll be revisiting that link up.

482
01:04:17,350 --> 01:04:24,470
Yes. Hello. I'm a general practitioner and I'm currently working on a project to develop a Web site to

483
01:04:24,470 --> 01:04:29,540
give general practitioners better information on the benefits and harms of treatments.

484
01:04:29,540 --> 01:04:37,550
And in researching how to do that, I've been talking to Tepees and most of them have forgotten even very simple statistical terms,

485
01:04:37,550 --> 01:04:40,450
even if they had been taught in medical school.

486
01:04:40,450 --> 01:04:46,400
And where it looks like it's heading is that the way to communicate information to them will be in very, very plain language.

487
01:04:46,400 --> 01:04:55,610
As a layperson level and using simple graphic I arrays to illustrate to one hundred people and five in 100 people,

488
01:04:55,610 --> 01:05:01,500
it seems to be the three way that is appealing. Most people, even the doctors.

489
01:05:01,500 --> 01:05:12,260
Is the de facto boxes that you can find on our Web site and other places, they those were showed mostly in numbers.

490
01:05:12,260 --> 01:05:24,330
But he came to them with those numbers. In my experience, most doctors prefer lockboxes, boxes without numbers and patients anyhow.

491
01:05:24,330 --> 01:05:31,650
So if you'd set up a Web site, go to our Web site and steal the fact boxes from ours.

492
01:05:31,650 --> 01:05:35,970
Just give a reference or steal them and disseminate them.

493
01:05:35,970 --> 01:05:42,450
I think that's one of the most powerful tools that people can see the evidence and make their own judgement.

494
01:05:42,450 --> 01:05:46,260
What do you still need to convey on the Web site? Is is the message.

495
01:05:46,260 --> 01:05:57,370
Have courage to take all the responsibility for your own life and the life or the health of your children and talk restocks doctors, of course.

496
01:05:57,370 --> 01:06:08,300
Yeah, but keep in mind. If you're in the U.S., most doctors, Keano, device you the best thing because it's defensive medicine or almost everyone.

497
01:06:08,300 --> 01:06:14,870
Most doctors don't even know the evidence or they'll conflicts of interest.

498
01:06:14,870 --> 01:06:20,150
So you need to take over the responsibility for your life.

499
01:06:20,150 --> 01:06:26,780
Convey that on your Web site just to repeat it again and again and again and again.

500
01:06:26,780 --> 01:06:32,080
You are a doctor and nothing is certain in this world.

501
01:06:32,080 --> 01:06:45,240
And if you take over the responsibility, at least you can blame yourself.

502
01:06:45,240 --> 01:06:52,360
Sorry. She'll be able to take over responsibility.

503
01:06:52,360 --> 01:06:56,140
That's what I have tried to do, but it's not easy.

504
01:06:56,140 --> 01:07:03,860
It's not easy to find the right evidence and to to compare the relative risk with the absolute risks.

505
01:07:03,860 --> 01:07:15,220
And I would like to be able to rely on my doctor. So if from what you've seen tonight, I have felt that I haven't been able to rely on that.

506
01:07:15,220 --> 01:07:18,760
And now I feel even more than I probably can't.

507
01:07:18,760 --> 01:07:26,020
But I'm not sure whether I understand what I'm looking for and maybe the fact boxes I've not come across.

508
01:07:26,020 --> 01:07:31,690
But, you know, you struggle as an individual to take that control right away.

509
01:07:31,690 --> 01:07:33,990
Let me just make a comment that they get.

510
01:07:33,990 --> 01:07:41,730
And then I'd like to ask Carol Hennigan, because when Carol and I is the director of surgery, everything is medicine.

511
01:07:41,730 --> 01:07:49,480
But the people we talk about most are the ones you're seeing in the weekend who reach 90 to stop.

512
01:07:49,480 --> 01:07:54,840
It's not that they been multi or ability be multi speciality problems.

513
01:07:54,840 --> 01:08:00,280
And so they're maybe dealing with three specialities, all of them prescribing different things.

514
01:08:00,280 --> 01:08:04,780
And then you people try to look up the evidence. I mean, we we haven't done this.

515
01:08:04,780 --> 01:08:11,210
It is quite hard to be the first editorial in the BMJ and to 20/20.

516
01:08:11,210 --> 01:08:16,870
Was about multi morbidity and saying we have to think in a different way with an ageing population,

517
01:08:16,870 --> 01:08:20,800
car related comment and the evidence for this really different group.

518
01:08:20,800 --> 01:08:25,610
You see when you're on call. There we go. Yeah, thanks me. Although it's a real privilege to listen to.

519
01:08:25,610 --> 01:08:31,390
Good to follow this work for 20 years. We've had 25 years of evidence based medicine at Oxford.

520
01:08:31,390 --> 01:08:37,210
Most people won't know in the room that the reason for that was that Muir made it happen when he brought Tasaki here.

521
01:08:37,210 --> 01:08:38,580
It worked.

522
01:08:38,580 --> 01:08:44,490
And so we've been wrestling with lots of the issues and some of the people you've had, like the Steve Wallace shins up there in the Leifur shorts.

523
01:08:44,490 --> 01:08:48,100
It's amazing work. And I think there are three points, really.

524
01:08:48,100 --> 01:08:54,130
I think the first is to say you made it in the sort of funding the people who do this work for people like yourself.

525
01:08:54,130 --> 01:08:59,740
David Spiegelhalter, amazing what they do. But there's actually so few people who do this work.

526
01:08:59,740 --> 01:09:03,760
It is quite amazing in research institutes. And you all said the pipetting.

527
01:09:03,760 --> 01:09:04,870
There's lots of that going on,

528
01:09:04,870 --> 01:09:13,120
but there's very few people working in a world to say how do we apply evidence and communicate evidence at the coalface, if you like.

529
01:09:13,120 --> 01:09:21,100
And that's interesting. And that's a real problem. And that's a probably a distortion of the incentives in research institutes.

530
01:09:21,100 --> 01:09:25,360
That's one, too, is I think it's very difficult.

531
01:09:25,360 --> 01:09:30,910
And and, ah, integration with clinical practise is really interesting. There are issues about the medical statistics.

532
01:09:30,910 --> 01:09:35,800
But if you look at the number of patients seen on a daily basis in the NHS, you know,

533
01:09:35,800 --> 01:09:40,270
we're talking about a million patients seen in summary in a week in outpatients.

534
01:09:40,270 --> 01:09:43,000
The actual number of estimates are quite small.

535
01:09:43,000 --> 01:09:49,620
So there are really interesting things going on within the consultation of when should you use the information?

536
01:09:49,620 --> 01:09:56,440
And when can you read? You said it. When can you rely on experience, expertise, other things like pattern recognition, recognition?

537
01:09:56,440 --> 01:10:00,610
So there's some really interesting issues in decision making.

538
01:10:00,610 --> 01:10:07,720
But I think your your mama referred and sorry I could stand there all day, but the lung cancer screening is a great example right now.

539
01:10:07,720 --> 01:10:15,820
We wrote about it last year with spending 70 million in the UK doing case finding as an experiment.

540
01:10:15,820 --> 01:10:22,450
Lung cancer Nelson trial came out a week ago and it actually was incredibly similar to the breast cancer screening.

541
01:10:22,450 --> 01:10:33,130
In fact, there was a 24 percent reduction in lung cancer specific mortality that translated into a 24 percent reduction in mortality.

542
01:10:33,130 --> 01:10:37,720
But actually, the overall mortality has increased in Nelson.

543
01:10:37,720 --> 01:10:38,910
And it's really interesting.

544
01:10:38,910 --> 01:10:48,190
Call if you said you underwent screening and you would have a 10 percent increase in risk from death from other causes, you would go, oh, my gosh.

545
01:10:48,190 --> 01:10:54,760
So we had one thing here. I'm sorry to leave, but the point is, it comes down to a value judgement, doesn't it?

546
01:10:54,760 --> 01:11:01,640
The decision to do screening is a decision about whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing.

547
01:11:01,640 --> 01:11:10,510
Our issue is and what you're trying to do, which is incredibly interesting, is touched the surface of how do we better inform the public,

548
01:11:10,510 --> 01:11:16,640
but particularly policy makers is a big issue right now because before we know it's going to lung

549
01:11:16,640 --> 01:11:23,030
cancer screening is to be rolled out and it's going to cost us about a billion pound for no benefit.

550
01:11:23,030 --> 01:11:36,890
And that's where the problem lies. So with the let let me start by the previous person who asked how can I take over responsibility?

551
01:11:36,890 --> 01:11:44,360
I think it's an essential thing. We all need to learn that we all still are in a paternalists world.

552
01:11:44,360 --> 01:11:50,200
And it's not the US or the Big Daddy, it's us who want to be the child.

553
01:11:50,200 --> 01:12:02,480
And we need to learn in many other areas like financial investment, take over responsibility and have a minimum information about these things.

554
01:12:02,480 --> 01:12:10,350
And the tools are there like fact boxes. And if you don't find a fact box, there's the Cochrane reviews.

555
01:12:10,350 --> 01:12:16,930
There are more difficult. But you in the UK have access to the primary news, your privilege.

556
01:12:16,930 --> 01:12:21,620
Chairman Donald, we've been fighting for a long time.

557
01:12:21,620 --> 01:12:25,700
The Americans also have no access. Yeah.

558
01:12:25,700 --> 01:12:30,860
So the. And on the. So just think.

559
01:12:30,860 --> 01:12:38,180
But I can't really give you advice. But look, in in my position I think I only live once.

560
01:12:38,180 --> 01:12:42,990
And when the day is where I die and I look back and said, you didn't dare.

561
01:12:42,990 --> 01:12:48,200
That would be the worst thing for me. Failing is good. On the question.

562
01:12:48,200 --> 01:12:53,480
On the. That so few people do this work.

563
01:12:53,480 --> 01:13:01,820
Correct. And the one reason is also lack of funding.

564
01:13:01,820 --> 01:13:05,210
Steve Woloshin, Elizabeth Schwartz was struggling all the time.

565
01:13:05,210 --> 01:13:12,440
They had positions that were full professors, but they had to find their own money for their salary.

566
01:13:12,440 --> 01:13:19,640
And the I mentioned Gary Schmitz's health news review, a beautiful bedside.

567
01:13:19,640 --> 01:13:24,170
It's still up. But they're struggling on survival.

568
01:13:24,170 --> 01:13:35,720
And the same thing I'm looking for since year for another David Harding, who was someone who spun, says the Harding Centre.

569
01:13:35,720 --> 01:13:44,790
It is almost impossible. People give money to all cases, but not really ever.

570
01:13:44,790 --> 01:13:53,310
To make people risk literate and the lung cancer screening story is a typical story, I would go.

571
01:13:53,310 --> 01:14:03,340
So you never know everything, but a good guess is the following.

572
01:14:03,340 --> 01:14:10,730
We have no evidence that any kind of cancer screening saves lives.

573
01:14:10,730 --> 01:14:16,840
There are about five or six who reduce the Kienzle specific mortality, like in mammography screening.

574
01:14:16,840 --> 01:14:22,430
And typically one out of a thousand, but one person dies from another course.

575
01:14:22,430 --> 01:14:32,060
So that's not saving lives. And I would say, given that we shouldn't invest more, what was it?

576
01:14:32,060 --> 01:14:38,660
Billion of pounds in finding a tiny, significant difference.

577
01:14:38,660 --> 01:14:46,630
That's irrelevant. But we should stop. Funding and investing the money.

578
01:14:46,630 --> 01:14:52,500
Well, we can expect that it will save lives from cancer and the.

579
01:14:52,500 --> 01:15:03,670
And this story is very simple. Here's the argument. About 50 percent of cancers are at the end due to behaviour.

580
01:15:03,670 --> 01:15:09,040
And it's everyone knows it's smoking. It's everything that contributes to obesity.

581
01:15:09,040 --> 01:15:18,880
Maybe too many. I'll call this second. These behaviours, like eating the wrong things, are for early in life.

582
01:15:18,880 --> 01:15:27,790
In childhood, mostly before puberty. Third, what follows invest in making young people risk literate.

583
01:15:27,790 --> 01:15:34,030
So did I understand what's being done? Once we see them, when they enter puberty, how they're being misled.

584
01:15:34,030 --> 01:15:37,990
From industry to eat the wrong things, to get drunk.

585
01:15:37,990 --> 01:15:50,290
And how they also depend on their peers. Get them the. If we only reach 20 percent in a programme in schools that does stato in a playful way,

586
01:15:50,290 --> 01:15:54,610
not notching, not forbidding does make the little kids competent.

587
01:15:54,610 --> 01:16:00,460
Tell them things. That's how you will be manipulated. Then get them emotionally.

588
01:16:00,460 --> 01:16:04,860
If you only get 20 percent, we will save more lives from cancer.

589
01:16:04,860 --> 01:16:16,750
As the entire cancer screening programmes, including probably the successes in medication, why don't we invest in that?

590
01:16:16,750 --> 01:16:23,220
I can tell you an entire story where I spent three years with the Dutch Cancer Society

591
01:16:23,220 --> 01:16:29,530
and we had all planned and the cancers that I was willing to had to to invest money.

592
01:16:29,530 --> 01:16:34,960
At the end, he gave the money to big data analytics.

593
01:16:34,960 --> 01:16:39,970
And they're still searching for the cause of cancer. Who ever got it?

594
01:16:39,970 --> 01:16:45,790
IBM or Siemens, as always. They make the business. That's the problem.

595
01:16:45,790 --> 01:16:55,330
We need to turn around and invest. Well, we actually can do something good for patients and save lives.

596
01:16:55,330 --> 01:17:03,940
Well, they may have to take a different approach. But Dave, second came, I told them two things.

597
01:17:03,940 --> 01:17:11,150
I didn't want him waiting his time inside the outer ring road. Apart from seeing patients.

598
01:17:11,150 --> 01:17:22,980
Because he was come to do something else. And secondly, I said Martin Luther should be his his role model and to to to preach.

599
01:17:22,980 --> 01:17:28,630
For conversion, and maybe we do need to think of a different approach.

600
01:17:28,630 --> 01:17:33,490
If we think of, I mean, the brain power of Karl-Henrik and others in this room.

601
01:17:33,490 --> 01:17:41,660
But this is much more emotional. And I'm just wondering whether we shouldn't rebrand what we're doing.

602
01:17:41,660 --> 01:17:50,500
And one thing that's emerged, I think it's been I mean, the word patient, by the way, set up a campaign for death to the patient.

603
01:17:50,500 --> 01:18:00,610
Let's get rid of the word patient. And a legal point of view, the person we call the patient is the principle and the clinician is the agent.

604
01:18:00,610 --> 01:18:04,240
So the word patient may be part of the problem we've got.

605
01:18:04,240 --> 01:18:15,580
I think we need to be thinking now about a different approach and with a good practise in a city like Berlin and Luther and Oxford,

606
01:18:15,580 --> 01:18:25,660
where we're very good at religion and talking about things, I think we were where we're not succeeding in our rational approach.

607
01:18:25,660 --> 01:18:33,490
Now, Karl's very good at getting on television shows that the academics perhaps would not approve of.

608
01:18:33,490 --> 01:18:38,590
But we have to think think of a new way we are that we need a new movement.

609
01:18:38,590 --> 01:18:44,690
And that movement is about the citizen, the principal, the person.

610
01:18:44,690 --> 01:18:50,150
And it is much more. This is the most complex business, earth.

611
01:18:50,150 --> 01:18:56,750
And what we've heard tonight has been someone making the most complex decisions that you ever

612
01:18:56,750 --> 01:19:02,750
face in your life about whether to have this treatment or that treatment or no treatment.

613
01:19:02,750 --> 01:19:10,520
Clearly. And we just need to think how we spread that word, get you be an inspiration to us.

614
01:19:10,520 --> 01:19:17,000
And I'm glad you're working full blast. And I told you gathered in addition to do me with the word retirement.

615
01:19:17,000 --> 01:19:23,420
I've done a B with a word, the word patient. We've done away with the word retirement. So Gibson is Renee Souls.

616
01:19:23,420 --> 01:19:27,500
And they I think we need to think now about how we take this forward.

617
01:19:27,500 --> 01:19:51,928
Get you're an inspiration to us. Thank you very much.