Let's Clearly Distinguish Evidence-based Practice and Empirically Supported Treatments
Let's Clearly Distinguish Evidence-based Practice and Empirically Supported Treatments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00377317.2019.1706316
复制
发表时间：
2019-10-02
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Friedman, Anne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Drisko, James W.;Friedman, Anne
循证实践（EBP）对社会工作实践，研究和教育产生了很大的影响。EBP是一个多步骤的医疗决策过程，其中包括治疗计划中的相关研究结果以及客户的偏好和临床专业知识。经验支持疗法（EST）是对特定疾病的治疗方法的指定，这些治疗方法符合研究质量的特定标准。EST通常是EBP过程的一部分，但与EBP过程并不相同。本文报告了对社会工作摘要数据库中相关200篇文章的审查结果，显示社会工作者未能区分这两个概念，并且往往未能充分和清晰地定义它们。更多发表的报告混淆EST与EBP比正确区分这两个概念。建议加强未来的社会工作出版，实践和教育。
Evidence based practice [EBP] has had a strong influence on social work practice, research, and education. EBP is a multi-step process for health care decision making which includes relevant research findings in treatment planning together with the client's preferences and clinical expertise. An empirically supported treatments [EST] is a designation for treatments for a given disorder that have met specific standards for research quality. ESTs are often part of the EBP process but are not identical to it. This article reports results from a review of relevant 200 articles from the Social Work Abstracts database, showing social workers fail to distinguish the two concepts, and often fail to define them fully and clearly. More published reports conflate ESTs with EBP than correctly distinguish the two concepts. Recommendation to strengthen future social work publications, practice and education are offered.