首页> 外文期刊>Clinical Social Work Journal >Evidence-Based Practices Do Not Exist
【24h】

Evidence-Based Practices Do Not Exist

机译:不存在循证实践

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The original process model of evidence-based practice (EBP) is described, and contrasted with the empirically supported treatments (EST) initiative which designated selected interventions as meeting some evidentiary benchmark (e.g., supported by two-well-designed randomized controlled trials). EBP does not utilize lists of ESTs, and designating a given psychotherapy as empirically supported is actually antithetical to the EBP decision-making process. Much of the resistance to EBP within social work may be attributable to confusion between EBP as it was originally conceived as a mutual decision-making process occurring between the clinician and the client, and the promulgation of lists of EST and the subsequent urging that social workers select their psychotherapies from such lists. The latter is not scientifically justifiable, nor does it taken into account other variables crucial to EBP, such as professional values, clinical expertise, client preferences and values, and available resources. EBP as it was originally conceived has much to add to the practice of clinical social work.
机译:描述了原始的循证实践(EBP)流程模型,并与经验支持的治疗(EST)计划进行对比,该计划将选定的干预措施指定为满足某些证据基准(例如,由两周精心设计的随机对照试验支持)。 EBP不会利用EST列表,并且根据经验支持指定给定的心理治疗实际上与EBP的决策过程相反。社会工作中对EBP的大部分抵制可能归因于EBP之间的混淆,因为它最初被认为是临床医生和服务对象之间的共同决策过程,还颁布了EST清单并随后敦促社会工作者从此类列表中选择他们的心理治疗。后者在科学上是不合理的,也没有考虑到对EBP至关重要的其他变量,例如专业价值观,临床专业知识,客户偏好和价值观以及可用资源。最初设想的EBP大大增加了临床社会工作的实践。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号