Читать книгу Medical Communication: From Theoretical Model To Practical Exploration - Tao Wang - Страница 22

For various reasons, the majority of scientific workers have largely ignored the work of science popularization, and even there is a common misunderstanding that the work of science popularization will cause a waste of time and energy for scientific research. In fact, science popularization can effectively supplement scientific research and bring positive effects.

Figure 2.3 The continuum model of science communication.

The continuum model of science communication by Dr. Butch, a famous international science communication scientist, is used to explain the relationship between scientific research and science popularization (Figure 2.3).

The model divides scientific knowledge into four stages. The first level is the intraspecialistic stage, which refers to the knowledge accumulation and exchange within the discipline domain. Because the people who master the knowledge in this stage are experts and scholars in this field, they have and can spread the most knowledge. For example, the orthopedic knowledge that orthopedic doctors can communicate with each other is the most abundant, because they have the same discipline terminology. The second stage is the interspecialistic stage. Although they are both scientists, the range of communication between experts in different disciplines is narrowed than that of the first stage. For example, when orthopedic doctors communicate with physicians, the scope of communication is much smaller. The third is the educational stage. The knowledge suitable for teaching in textbooks in each scientific field is only a limited part of the subject field, usually which have been tested by time, while the most cutting-edge and up-to-date knowledge is not suitable for this level. For example, on July 25, 1978, Louise Brown, the world’s first test tube baby, was born successfully in the UK. The success of this small life was hailed as a “miracle” by the media. The scientists had been experimenting for ten years without success until Louise was born. It should be said that Louise’s birth ushered in a new era. It meant that many infertile families have the hope of bearing offspring. But in the 1970s and 1980s, when the IVF technology was just invented, it didn’t test by time. Whether technology itself would do short-term or long-term harm to the mother, whether babies born with the help of technology were like ordinary babies, whether they would die, whether there would be various health or intellectual problems, including ethical problems, which could not be solved when the technology just came into being, so it was not suitable to appear in textbooks. But now, 40 years later, it has been proved to be a very effective method of assisted reproduction, and the offspring it produced has also been proved to be healthy. Louise, the first test tube baby, is now a mother herself. Robert Edwards, the founder of technology, won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine. This technology has been proven not only effective but also safe. It brings hope to millions of families who have lost the hope of future generations, and has been widely written into textbooks. The last is the popular stage, at which the amount of knowledge is the least, because the knowledge suitable for the public to popularize should have its choice gold standard, which is the scientific knowledge with final conclusion, including the contents of current science textbooks, dictionaries, and relevant national laws and regulations. For example, on November 13, 2017, at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association (AHA), the latest version of The Guidelines for Prevention, Testing, Evaluation and Management of Hypertension in the United States was released, jointly developed by AHA, the American Heart Association (ACC), and other academic institutions. The guideline has changed the standard of hypertension for many years: systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, redefined the new standard of hypertension, and put forward that systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mmHg can be diagnosed as hypertension. Since the standard of hypertension, which has been used for many years, has been redefined, the guideline has been controversial since it was issued. Some people think that the new standard of hypertension is lower than before, reflecting the importance of early intervention in hypertension. When the blood pressure is ≥ 130/80 mmHg, the intervention can avoid more complications of hypertension and target organ damage, which is beneficial to patients. It is also believed that the standard revision of the new guidelines is driven by economic interests, that is to say the new guidelines can drive manufacturers to sell more high blood pressure drugs. It is also believed that the new guidelines may increase the medical expenses of patients and the adverse reactions of drugs. On the other hand, they are not suitable for all patients with hypertension. Low blood pressure may also bring additional risks to patients. From the perspective of medical communication, our textbook and the recognized gold standard for the diagnosis of hypertension are always blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg. The latest guidelines have not been widely recognized and are still in the stage of controversy. At present, when we do medical communication, we should use the latter (the textbook standard) rather than the former (the latest guide, which has not been widely recognized) as the standard to spread and popularize. Of course, if the new standard has been widely proved to be reliable and effective several years later, and has been written into textbooks, and the general public has also recognized the new standard of hypertension, the new standard should prevail in the dissemination of knowledge about hypertension at that time.

The above-mentioned stages are not independent. They can promote and influence each other. Even the popularized knowledge can also feed back to the professional field.

In the field of medicine, medical communication and medical research can form a closed-loop. Science popularization can be done according to the problems and conclusions found in scientific research, and scientific research can be guided by the effect and feedback of science popularization. The visibility of research can be effectively improved at the same time.

For example, New York Times is a daily newspaper published in New York, the United States. It is distributed all over the world and has a huge influence. The representatives of American high-level newspapers and serious journals have a good credibility and authority for a long time. The New England Journal of Medicine, one of the top medical journal, pointed out that a medical research article reported by the New York Times would be cited three times as frequently as other articles not reported by it.⁶