Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead

被引:185
作者
Gambrill, E [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Berkeley, Sch Social Welf, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
关键词
evidence-based practice; choices; ethics; transparency;
D O I
10.1177/1049731505284205
中图分类号
C916 [社会工作、社会管理、社会规划];
学科分类号
1204 ;
摘要
Choices about how to view evidence-based practice (EBP) are being made by educators, practitioners, agency administrators, and staff in a variety of organizations designed to promote integration of research and practice such as clearing houses on EBP Choices range from narrow views of EBP such as use of empirically based guidelines and treatment manuals to the broad philosophy and evolving process of EBP envisioned by its originators, that addresses evidentiary, ethical, and application issues in a transparent context. Current views of EBP and policy are reviewed, and choices that reflect the adopted vision and related indicators are described. Examples include who will select the questions on which research efforts are focused, what outcomes will be focused on, who will select them and oil what basis, how transparent to be regarding the evidentiary status of services, how clients will be involved, and whether to implement needed organizational changes. A key choice is whether to place ethical issues front and center.
引用
收藏
页码:338 / 357
页数:20
相关论文
共 107 条
[1]   The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Altman, DG ;
Schulz, KF ;
Moher, D ;
Egger, M ;
Davidoff, F ;
Elbourne, D ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Lang, T .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) :663-694
[2]  
Angell M., 2004, TRUTH DRUG CO THEY D
[3]  
[Anonymous], SOCIAL WORKERS DESK
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Evidence-based health care
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2005, Evidence-based practices in mental health: Debate and dialogue on the fundamental questions
[6]  
[Anonymous], GUIDE CHILD WELFARE
[7]  
[Anonymous], ETHICAL HUMAN SCI SE
[8]  
[Anonymous], HDB APPL COGNITIVE P
[9]  
[Anonymous], EVIDENCE BASED PRACT
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Evidence-based patient choice. Inevitable or impossible?