Practitioner's Guide to Using Research for Evidence-Informed Practice. Allen Rubin
Читать онлайн книгу.
Practice Guidelines
| Organization | Internet site |
|---|---|
| American Psychological Association (empirically supported treatments) | http://www.apa.org/divisions/div12/rev_est |
| BMG Clinical Evidence | http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/index.jsp |
| California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare | http://www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org |
| Campbell Collaboration | http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/index.html |
| Cochrane Collaboration | http://www.cochrane.org |
| Center for Substance Abuse Prevention | http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/templatecfm?page=default |
| Crisis Intervention, Comorbidity Assessment, Domestic Violence Intervention, and Suicide Prevention Network | http://www.crisisinterventionnetwork.com |
| Department of Health and Human Services: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice | http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/epcix.htm |
| The Evidence-Based Program Database | http://www.alted-mh.org/EIPd |
| Evidence Network (United Kingdom) | http://www.evidencenetwork.org/home.asp |
| Expert Consensus Guidelines Series | http://www.psychguides.com |
| National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder | www.ncptsd.va.gov/publications/cq/v5/n4/keane.html |
| National Guidelines Clearinghouse (Department of Health and Human Services) | http://www.guidelines.gov |
| Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide | http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/mpg_index.htm |
| Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center | http://www.ohsu.edu/epc |
| Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices | http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/find.asp |
There are, however, a number of counterpoints to be made to their argument. One, of course, is that – as we noted earlier – EIP questions are not just about intervention effectiveness and are not just at the clinical level of practice. Another counterpoint, also noted earlier, is that other studies have not shared the dodo bird conclusions. Some have found the choice of intervention to have a greater impact on outcome than do relationship skills. The same authors have noted methodological flaws in the studies supporting the dodo bird verdict (Beutler, 2002; Craighead et al., 2005; Lilienfeld, 2007). Moreover, some studies that have concluded that relationship factors are more important have nonetheless found that while the choice of intervention might be less important, it is not unimportant. In light of those studies, one can argue that even if relationship factors are important it is a false dichotomy to conclude that relationship factors are all that matter. Why not work to maximize the benefit of both types of factors?
Another counterpoint to the dodo bird verdict argument against EIP is that virtually every treatment manual that accompanies interventions that are generally recognized as having the best scientific research evidence supporting their effectiveness stresses the importance of the therapeutic alliance and relationship skills as a necessary component of the intervention. Thus, if practitioners do not provide the intervention in the context of a strong therapeutic alliance and with good relationship skills, then they are failing to comply with the manual!
As a final counterpoint, let's suppose that the dodo bird argument is correct, that the choice of intervention does not matter, and that all that matters is relationship skills. Although we don't buy that argument, let's further suppose that practitioners choose, based on the research supporting the dodo bird argument, to focus exclusively on maximizing the strength of their relationship skills and of the therapeutic alliance. Would that mean that they are not engaging in the EIP process? The answer – paradoxically – is a resounding no! Why so? Because there is nothing in the definition of the EIP process that requires choosing a particular intervention. Instead, all that it requires is to choose to intervene in light of the best scientific evidence. If practitioners decide that the best evidence indicates that to be most helpful to their clients they must emphasize relationship skills exclusively (and if that emphasis is consistent with their practice knowledge and client characteristics), and they therefore decide to be guided by that evidence in their practice, then they are following the EIP process and being influenced by what they perceive to be the best evidence! That is what EIP is all about!
KEY CHAPTER CONCEPTS
The first step in the EIP process is to formulate a question about a practice decision. If the question pertains to the selection of an intervention, it can be open-ended or it can inquire as to the comparative effectiveness of one or more interventions that are specified in the question.
The second step in the EIP process is to search for evidence. This can involve going to websites that offer reviews as well as searching literature databases.
When searching literature databases, using Boolean operators such as and, or, and not in your search terms can limit or broaden the range of resulting references.
When conducting your own search, you don't have to read every study that you find. You can examine their titles and abstracts to ascertain which ones are worth reading.
The third step in the EIP process involves critically appraising the evidence. A key aim in this phase is to distinguish studies that have fatal flaws from those whose flaws are less serious and more acceptable.
A study that is very strong from a scientific standpoint, such as one that has only a few trivial flaws, should outweigh a large number of weaker studies containing serious (albeit perhaps not fatal)