"What works" registries of interventions to improve child and youth psychosocial outcomes: A critical appraisal
"What works" registries of interventions to improve child and youth psychosocial outcomes: A critical appraisal
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106469
复制
发表时间：
2022-03-31
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Berry, Vashti
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Axford, Nick;Morpeth, Louise;Berry, Vashti
在过去的十年或更长时间里，旨在改善儿童和青少年心理社会结果的循证干预措施的在线登记激增。这些资源的目的通常是帮助决策者理解证据，从而为他们关于干预措施投资的决策提供信息。大多数登记都以证据标准为基础，专家小组用这些标准来指导项目评级。虽然支持者赞扬这些举措的影响力，因为它们使委员们对自己的投资项目更加歧视，但反对者则认为，它们扼杀了创新，并体现了对证据和干预的过于狭隘的看法。本文借鉴文献、原始分析以及制定、应用和使用证据标准及相关登记的第一手经验，批判性地反思了它们的优点和局限性，考虑了重点、功能、内容、一致性和影响等问题。它还提出了发展和扩展该方法的建议，重点关注干预措施发展、评估实践和影响途径的内在概念化。
The last decade or more has seen a proliferation of online registries of evidence-based interventions designed to improve child and youth psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of these resources is typically to help decision makers make sense of the evidence and thereby inform their decision-making about investment in interventions. Most registries are underpinned by standards of evidence, which are used to guide the rating of programs by a panel of experts. While supporters extol the influence of these initiatives in terms of making commissioners more discriminating about what they invest in, detractors contend that they stifle innovation and embody an unduly narrow view of evidence and intervention. Drawing on the literature, original analysis and first-hand experience of developing, applying and using standards of evidence and associated registries, this article reflects critically on their strengths and limitations, considering issues such as focus, functionality, content, consistency and impact. It also makes proposals for developing and extending the approach, focusing on its intrinsic conceptualization of intervention development, evaluation practice and pathways to impact.