Critical Review of Evidence-Based Program Repositories for Behavioral Health Trea

描述（由申请人提供）：在选择和实施与行为健康相关的干预措施时，寻找“有效的方法”对于做出明智的、非武断的、合理的决定至关重要。辅助决策的一种重要模式是创建基于证据的程序和实践库（ebpr）。初步的互联网搜索产生了40多个网站形式的知识库，这些网站有数据库或推荐程序的汇编。此外，还有许多已发表的荟萃分析和系统综述。这些来源都以诸如“循证”、“有效”、“最佳实践”或“有希望的实践”等术语确定或促进干预措施。熟悉的例子有国家基于证据的项目和实践登记处（NREPP），疾病预防控制中心的有效行为干预传播网站和Cochrane评论。不幸的是，伴随这些潜在有用的知识库的扩散而来的往往是截然不同的目的、包含标准、可接受的“证据”的定义，以及将干预指定为“有效”或在一定程度上有效的标准。因此，政策制定者和从业者可能会对假定的循证干预措施提出模棱两可、不一致和不完整的建议。在这种情况下，强制使用“循证”计划可能没有意义，因为这正在成为一种趋势。为了更好地了解它们之间的关系以及如何最好地利用它们进行决策和资源分配，尚未对这些不断增加的ebpr进行全面和严格的审查。该研究将：1。编制与行为健康有关的干预措施的全面ebpr清单。2. 根据其目的、方法、可接受的证据类型和标准以及用于包括和证明“有效”干预措施的其他因素，对这些ebpr进行分类。3. 确定使用不同类型和标准的证据来包括和证明干预措施是有效的实际后果（例如，不同的ebpr对相同的干预措施的评价在多大程度上和出于什么原因不同？）这项对ebpr的批判性研究的结果将增加对这些知识库的优势和局限性的理解，指出如何最好地在决策中使用它们，从而有助于在社会中传播有效的行为健康相关计划。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The search for "what works" is crucial for making well-informed, non-arbitrary, defensible decisions about selecting and implementing behavioral health-related interventions. One significant modality for assisted decision-making has been the creation of repositories of evidence-based programs and practices ("EBPRs"). A preliminary Internet search yielded more than 40 repositories in the form of websites with databases or compilations of recommended programs. Additionally there exist many published meta-analyses and systematic reviews. These sources all identify or promote interventions in terms such as "evidence-based," "effective," "best practices," or "promising practices." Familiar examples are the National Registry of Evidence- Based Programs and Practices (NREPP), the CDC's Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions website and the Cochrane Reviews. Unfortunately, the proliferation of such potentially useful repositories has been accompanied by often dramatically different purposes, criteria for inclusion, definitions of acceptable "evidence," and standards for designating interventions as "effective" or effective to a certain degree. Thus, policy-makers and practitioners can be presented with ambiguous, inconsistent and incomplete recommendations for putative evidence-based interventions. In this situation, it may not be meaningful to mandate the use "evidence-based" programs, as is becoming a trend. These proliferating EBPRs have not yet been comprehensively and critically examined to better understand the relations among them and how best to utilize them for decision-making and resource allocation. The study will: 1. Compile a comprehensive list of EBPRs for behavioral health-related interventions. 2. Classify those EBPRs according to their purposes, methodologies, acceptable types and standards of evidence, and other factors that are used to include and certify "effective" interventions. 3. Determine the practical consequences of using different types and standards of evidence for including and certifying interventions as effective (e.g., to what extent and for what reasons are the same interventions rated differently by different EBPRs?). The results of this critical study of EBPRs would increase understanding of the strengths and limitations of these repositories, indicate how best to use them in decision-making, and thus aid in disseminating effective behavioral health-related programs in society. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: The results of this critical study of evidence-based program registers would increase understanding of the strengths and limitations of these repositories, indicate how best to use them in decision-making, and thus aid in disseminating effective behavioral health- related programs in society.