Predictors of the Use of Evidence-Based Interventions Among National Association of Social Work (NASW) Members

Abstract

There is growing emphasis on the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in the field of social work.However, much remains unknown about the factors associated with the implementation of evidence-based interventions among social workers. In the current cross-sectional study the authors examined a sample of 180 NASW members who completed a survey assessing knowledge of EBP, organizational climate, and practitioner use of evidence-based interventions (EBI). Logistic regression was used to identify variables that predicted NASW members' self-reported use of EBI. Organizational climate factors and practitioner knowledge were predictive of self-reported EBI use in the sample of NASW members. Findings suggest that increased knowledge of evidence-based practice and higher levels of innovation and flexibility in the organizational climate may increase adoption of EBIs.

Exploring How Practicing Social Workers Define Evidence-Based Practice

“…In this process, EBP is often described as consisting of five stages that the social worker works through (not necessarily in a linear fashion), which consists of the following: (a) formulate a well-structured answerable question to address a practice need; (b) search the best available evidence to answer the question; (c) critically assess and evaluate the evidence for its validity, impact, and applicability to the situation; (d) integrate the evidence with clinical expertise and judgment and client wishes, values, and circumstances; and (e) evaluate the process of conducting steps 1 -4 as well as the outcome of the intervention (Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002;Jayne, 2014;Sackett et al, 2000). This process of engaging in EBP is different from EBP as a method or product, often referred to as empirically validated treatments, empirically supported treatments, or evidence-based interventions (EBI), which are specific interventions found to be effective, or "evidence-based," and have established protocols for their implementation (McLaughlin & Teater, 2017;Tuten, Morris-Compton, Abrefa-Gyan, Hwang, & Harrington, 2016;Williams & Sherr, 2013). EBP as a five-step process considers EBIs as one critical aspect of the process, but EBIs are to be weighed against the social worker's clinical expertise, the client's wishes and values, and the organizational context (Jayne, 2014).…”

“…Moreover, even if practitioners have access to the best available research, the integration into clinical practice can be a slow and challenging process as the extent to which practitioners engage and apply the process of EBP with their clients has been found to vary based on numerous factors, such as time to engage in research and the EBP process, access to research, outside political or insurance pressure, organizational support, knowledge and skills of the practitioner, and ongoing training, support, mentorship, and supervision (Bellamy, Bledsoe, & Traube, 2006;Bledsoe-Mansori et al, 2013;Gray, Joy, Plath, & Webb, 2015;Morago, 2010;Tuten et al, 2016;Wharton, 2010). For example, social workers need time to search for and appraise evidence as part of the EBP process, which requires organizations to acknowledge and support such activities through dedicated staff time as well as access to libraries and online databases of research evidence.…”

Predictors of empirically-supported interventions following structured functional assessment.

“…EBP has been described as "the most challenging and critical practice area of health care and human services" (Roberts & Yeager, 2004, p. v). Within the field of social work, the emphasis on EBP has steadily gained momentum over the past two decades (Tuten, Morris-Compton, Abrefa-Gyan, Hwang, & Harrington, 2016).…”

“…Whereas EBP is a process, empirically supported interventions (ESIs) or empirically supported treatments (ESTs) are products-specifically, therapeutic interventions that have been scientifically validated (Drisko & Grady, 2015;McBeath, Briggs, & Aisenberg, 2010;Thyer & Pignotti, 2011). The two terms (EBP & ESIs) are conceptually distinct (Thyer & Pignotti, 2011) though there is still much confusion regarding their respective definitions (Rubin & Parrish, 2007) and they are often used interchangeably in the scholarly literature (Tuten et al, 2016). The search process inherent to EBP may in fact culminate in the identification of an appropriate ESI (when one exists) but merely selecting a treatment from a list of ESIs is not sufficiently indicative of, or even necessarily consistent with, EBP (Mullen, Bledsoe, & Bellamy 2008).…”

“…A decade ago Walker and colleagues (2007) observed: "social work education needs to make sure that all social workers… understand how to use EBP to select an EST" (p. 368); this study will explore the degree to which this educational imperative has been satisfied. Emerging research suggests that practitioner knowledge is among the most important predictors of engagement in EBP or the use of ESIs (Tuten et al, 2016). Given the conceptual confusion and definitional ambiguity regarding the EBP process, there is little wonder that social work students may not feel confident in their capacity to integrate structured assessment into such a framework.…”