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

描述（由申请人提供）：寻找“什么有效”对于做出关于选择和实施行为健康相关干预措施的明智，非任意，可辩护的决定至关重要。辅助决策的一个重要模式是创建基于证据的方案和实践（“EBPR”）的存储库。初步的互联网搜索产生了40多个以网站形式存在的数据库或推荐方案汇编。此外，还有许多已发表的荟萃分析和系统综述。这些资料来源都用“循证”、“有效”、“最佳做法”或“有希望的做法”等术语来确定或促进干预措施。“熟悉的例子是国家循证方案和实践登记处（NREPP），疾病预防控制中心的有效行为干预网站和科克伦评论的传播。不幸的是，这种可能有用的储存库的激增往往伴随着截然不同的目的、纳入标准、可接受的“证据”的定义以及指定干预措施为“有效”或在一定程度上有效的标准。因此，政策制定者和从业人员可能会收到模糊、不一致和不完整的关于假定的循证干预措施的建议。在这种情况下，强制使用“循证”方案可能没有意义，因为这已成为一种趋势。尚未对这些不断增加的预算外项目进行全面和严格的审查，以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。该研究将：1。为行为健康相关干预编制一份全面的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纳入和证明“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纳入和证明干预措施有效的实际后果（例如，在何种程度上以及出于何种原因，不同的EBPR对相同的干预措施有不同的评价？ 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，表明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。 公共卫生相关性：基于证据的程序注册的批判性研究的结果将增加对这些存储库的优势和局限性的理解，指出如何最好地使用它们在决策中，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.