NB the “?” at the end of the tittle! NB also the word “clinical”!
Also related to the below is While Evidenced Based Medicine is not enough effective in clinical work | Biopsychosocial Medicine and https://biopsychosocialmedicine.com/clinical-data-2/evienced-based-approaches-or-individuals/ as well as https://biopsychosocialmedicine.com/projects/innovation-and-development-of-a-more-effective-care/challenges-for-future-care-here-focusing-only-on-who-decides-normative-evidence-vs-clinical-ideographic-evidence/ and Evidenced based falsification of data or validation of the individual patient in front of us? | Biopsychosocial Medicine and Challenges for future care: Here focusing only on “who decides – normative evidence vs clinical ideographic evidence” | Biopsychosocial Medicine
First, in many very complex, not well understood diseases/problems/.. just to do a study on just one (independent variable) parameter when knowledge based (real life – biopsychosocial paradigm based, a priori predictions are multifaceted (including assumed synergy interactions between x number of independent variables) makes no sense – using control group including. But there are ways if we use the individual as point of departure*.
NB. I focus mainly on lifestyle related diseases/problems/..
To be able to get an improved “picture” of individual – there within and between variations – we need a totally other kind of focused methodology design., stating at ideographic level and the move upwards (?) to nomothetical level.
My way to address this is … (text coming)
Right now very brief, my “way” based on integrated psychophysiological behavioral medicine is summarized at (in terms of “patients as a reasonable competent educated recourses and coworkers in own rehab”) (HELLA, not just to be considered in Medicine? | Cultural Medicine .. )