Implementing Evidence-Based Practice

Gray, Mel; Joy, Elyssa; Plath, Debbie; Webb, Stephen A.

doi:10.1177/1049731512467072

Cited by 140 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence-based practice process requires that practitioners or organizations: 1) form an answerable question; 2) seek the best evidence to answer that question; 3) critically appraising the evidence; 4) integrate that appraisal with their clinical expertise, client values, preferences, and clinical circumstances; and 5) evaluate the outcome (Gibbs, 2003). A helpful example of the application of this process has been published in this journal (McCracken & Marsh, 2008), and a recent review identified a number of studies that evaluated efforts to implement the evidence-based practice process in community settings (Gray, Joy, Plath, & Webb, 2012). The direct application of ESIs, which is the focus of our review, involves integrating interventions that have some evidence for their efficacy and effectiveness for a given population or clinical problem into routine care settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions

Powell

Proctor

Glass

2013

Research on Social Work Practice

223

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This systematic review examines experimental studies that test the effectiveness of strategies intended to integrate empirically supported mental health interventions into routine care settings. Our goal was to characterize the state of the literature and to provide direction for future implementation studies. Methods A literature search was conducted using electronic databases and a manual search. Results Eleven studies were identified that tested implementation strategies with a randomized (n = 10) or controlled clinical trial design (n = 1). The wide range of clinical interventions, implementation strategies, and outcomes evaluated precluded meta-analysis. However, the majority of studies (n = 7; 64%) found a statistically significant effect in the hypothesized direction for at least one implementation or clinical outcome. Conclusions There is a clear need for more rigorous research on the effectiveness of implementation strategies, and we provide several suggestions that could improve this research area.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions

Powell

Proctor

Glass

2013

Research on Social Work Practice

223

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recognizing the importance of research evidence for improving organizational performance and service outcomes, policymakers in many countries have made evidence-informed health and human services a priority [7, 8]. In the USA, an increasing number of state and local governments now link the use of research evidence regarding “effective” programs and practices, including evidence-based treatments (EBTs), to funding decisions or service reimbursement [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Challenges to the use of research evidence, and particularly to the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of EBTs, are well documented [8, 22, 23]. Less studied are the formal supports—i.e., staff positions, infrastructural supports, and special initiatives—organizations may put in place to help overcome these challenges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational supports used by private child and family serving agencies to facilitate evidence use: a mixed methods study protocol

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChallenges to evidence use are well documented. Less well understood are the formal supports—e.g., technical infrastructure, inter-organizational relationships—organizations may put in place to help overcome these challenges. This study will identify supports for evidence use currently used by private child and family serving agencies delivering publicly funded behavioral health and/or human services; examine contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with use of such supports; and determine how identified supports affect evidence use by staff at multiple levels of the organization.MethodsWe will use a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, with study activities occurring in two sequential phases: In phase 1, quantitative survey data collected from managers of private child and family serving agencies in six states (CA, IN, KY, MO, PA, and WI) and analyzed using both regression and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) will identify organizational supports currently being used to facilitate evidence use and examine the contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with the use of such supports. In phase 2, data from phase 1 will be used to select a purposive sample of 12 agencies for in-depth case studies. In those 12 agencies, semi-structured interviews with key informants and managers, focus groups with frontline staff, and document analysis will provide further insight into agencies’ motivation for investing in organizational supports for evidence use and the facilitators and barriers encountered in doing so. Semi-structured interviews with managers and focus groups with frontline staff will also assess whether and how identified supports affect evidence use at different levels of the organization (senior executives, middle managers, frontline supervisors, and frontline staff). Within- and between-case analyses supplemented by QCA will identify combinations of factors associated with the highest and lowest levels of staff evidence use.DiscussionThis study will inform efforts to improve sustainment, scale-up, and spread of evidence by providing insight into organizational and managerial strategies that facilitate evidence use, the contexts in which these strategies are most effective, and their effect on evidence use by staff at different levels of the organization.

show abstract

“…Previous research and debate within this discourse has primarily focused on the travelling of knowledge from research to practice and vice versa, as well as on the utilization of research-based knowledge in fields of practice, its preconditions and outcomes (Cnaan & Dichter, 2008;Gira, Kessler, & Poertner, 2004;Gray et al, 2013;Gredig & Sommerfeld, 2008;Johansson, 2009;Mullen, Bledsoe, & Bellamy, 2008;Osterling & Austin, 2008). Issues of international, cross-country and 'cross-context' exchange of knowledge have often been overlooked.…”

Section: International Travelling Of Concepts and Programmesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Programmes crossing borders: the international travelling of programmes in social work

Schnurr

Slettebø

2015

European Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of evidence-based policy and practice is increasingly found in the field of social work. Using Multisystemic Therapy (MST) as a case, this article explores issues arising from the travelling of programmes to settings that are different and distant from those of their origin. While such travelling is often accompanied and facilitated by narratives of positive findings in effectiveness trials, it can be argued that effectiveness and efficiency are influenced by contextual conditions and therefore the informational value of such trials is limited. Accepting that there are epistemic and practical limits to the idea of a universal effectiveness of a certain programme, the travelling of programmes is not necessarily a case of the 'best ideas' being adopted and such travelling therefore requires critical examination. Decisions on programme adoption should be based not only on effectiveness trials, but also on knowledge about the generic elements of (alternative) programmes as well as on knowledge about contextual conditions including the needs of local service users and gaps in local service provision.Keywords: evidence-based practice; international transfer of knowledge; transportability of manual-based programmes; Multisytemic Therapy Profesjonelt sosialt arbeid er i økende grad påvirket av evidensbasert politikk og praksis. Artikkelen ser naermere på noen av de utfordringene som kan oppstå når behandlingsmetoder overføres og tas i bruk andre steder enn der de ble utviklet, og den anvender multiystemisk terapi (MST) som et eksempel. Slike 'kunnskapsreiser' er ofte begrunnet ut fra positive resultater fra effektmålinger, men det kan reises spørsmål om verdien av disse målingene fordi de ikke alltid tar høyde for betydningen av kontekstuelle forhold. Forestillingen om at det finnes universelle effekter av enkelte behandlingsmetoder kan problematiseres, og derfor er det ikke nødvendigvis alltid de beste løsningene som tas i bruk. Av denne grunn er det viktig å ha et kritisk blikk på slike overføringsprosesser. Beslutninger om å adoptere behandlingsmetoder bør derfor ikke bare basere seg på evidensbaserte resultater, men også om kunnskap locale forhold som kan påvirke implementeringen av slike programmer.

show abstract

Implementing Evidence-Based Practice

Cited by 140 publications

References 42 publications

A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions

A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions

Organizational supports used by private child and family serving agencies to facilitate evidence use: a mixed methods study protocol

Programmes crossing borders: the international travelling of programmes in social work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About