4 ms·
I was impressed by this part: > In recent years, light therapy has experienced something of a backlash in Sweden, and Malmö’s clinic is one of only a handful t
by SamBam 10y ago
I was impressed by this part:
> In recent years, light therapy has experienced something of a backlash in Sweden, and Malmö’s clinic is one of only a handful that remain. In part, this was a response to a 2007 study by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, which reviewed the available evidence and concluded that “although treatment in light therapy rooms is well established in Sweden, no satisfactory, controlled studies have been published on the subject."
My first thought was "Wow, a whole country that reacts to scientific articles and statements about the lack of controlled studies."
(Of course, the article goes on to say that light therapy shouldn't really be discredited yet, as controlled studies are hard.)
- refurb 10y agoMy first thought was "Wow, a whole country that reacts to scientific articles and statements about the lack of controlled studies." I'm assuming, it's not the country reacts, it's that Sweden's single payer system refuses to pay for it any more. Health technology assessments (HTAs) are done by a lot of countries like Canada and Australia. Basically they make a judgement on the value of a healthcare offering and if there is no evidence it works, they turn off the funding.
- SamBam 10y agoAh, well actually I like that as well, but that's probably just because I'm a paternalistic liberal... ;)
- nerdponx 10y agoIt's really bizarre and frustrating how "this hasn't been studied" is discrediting. Study it before you conclude it isn't effective.
- DanBC 10y agoNo one has said it's not effective. They've said there's no evidence that it's effective (which also means there's no evidence that it's not causing harm).
- Retric 10y agono studies != there's no evidence They basically said that existing studies failed to be of sufficient quality. But, that does not mean they provide zero evidence.