Search

Unfortunately, this article does not describe a disaster situation, thus this question is not answerable. 

1) "The inclusion of a single anecdote in a research overview can lead to a reprimand, for reliance on storytelling."

2) "Because clinical observations often do pan out, they serve as low­level evidence — especially if they jibe with what basic science suggests is likely. To be sure, this approach, giving weight to the combination of doctors’ experience and biological plausibility, stands somewhat in conflict with the principles of evidence­based medicine"

3) "HERE is where I want to venture a radical statement about the worth of anecdote. Beyond its roles as illustration, affirmation, hypothesis­builder and lowlevel guidance for practice, storytelling can act as a modest counterbalance to a straitened understanding of evidence."

1) Current criteria surrounding clinical depression: While most of us hold an idea of what depression is, physicians have been given the task of specifically categorizing this nuanced disease. Also called "major depression", clinical depression is the prolonged sensation of low mood during almost all times/activities. These sensations must be present for at least 2 weeks and be persistent across daily activity in order to be considered major depression

2) CBT: Cognitive behavioral therapy is the current widely used model for psychosocial intervention. It focuses on the patient developing coping strategies to aid in emotional regulation, curb unhelpful cognitive patterns, and seek personal solutions

3) Vignette: Never heard of this word before. The term originally referred to small, pleasing sketches, views, engravings, photographs, or illustrations. However, the term is used here to describe a story of patient care. The quick snap-shot is a far-cry from the typical encyclopedia given to health care providers about a patient; it acts as a small, short tale depiction of the scenario, the intervention used, and the outcome. 

The article focuses more on the fallacies of our current approaches to medicine. Dr. Kramer contends that the public would benefit from physicians melding their current factual approaches with anecdotal methods as well. Particularly, the field of psychiatry, which dabbles in processes of the brain not yet understood. While Dr. Kramer acknowledges it is necessary to have a well-defined approach, using "stories" allows for a more enriched judgement and remind practitioners of the vast differences in human experience. 

Peter D. Kramer, MD: A clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown University and a board-certified psychiatrist. He specializes in clinical depression and his research heavily focuses on the possibility of multiple causation. 

Dr. Kramer contends that the current atmosphere of hard, factual-based medicine could benefit from the inclusion of anecdotal evidence. Especially in the fields of psychiatry and psychology, where parameters are still heavily undefined, anecdotes can aid physicians in providing appropriate treatment for a patient. While medicine demands an element of precision only acquired through lengthy, controlled studies, some cases benefit from expedited decisions based on past experience.

Peter D. Kramer is an American psychiatrist. Currently a faculty member of Brown Medical School, Dr. Kramer conducted most of the research included through patient interaction. As an opinion piece, the article does not carry a significant amount of hard, factual data. However, it should be noted that some factual information comes through published resources, such as current medical protocols held by the American Medical Association.