an integrative approach to science and practice wherein each must continually inform the other.
research orientation in their practice, practice relevance in their research
Origins in history of clin psych practice in US, Freud & Jung introducing psychoanalysis, medical doctors believe they should be only practitioners, major problems managing WWII vets shell shock
Clin psych joined APA in 1919 but not welcome, clinicians had their own association for a while, 1944 APA accepted full responsibility for clin psych, 1949 when SP model became fully integrated into applied training through Boulder committee
To ensure that the therapies clinicians use have empirical evidence (i.e. that they actually work). To make sure that clinicians know the evidence, and that researchers do evaluations of therapies being used.
Those treated by psychoanalysis improved by 44 percent, those treated eclectically improved by 64% and those just treated by general practitioners improved by 72%
The more psychotherapy, the smaller the recovery rate
In practitioners: attainment of critical thinking skills, understanding of research findings, know how to best implement interventions, can empirically justify intervention choice, avoid harm and reduce unneccesary treatment
Claims that applied work is often incompatible with scientific work, not all research applies to practice
Few clin psychs publish after completing training
Practitioners taught to be producers of small-scale clinical science rather than traditional research science
Applied scientist who uses theory, validated principles of assessment and treatment where they exist; applies scientific methods and hypothesis testing, improves existing ones
What is evidence-based practice?
Evidence-based practice is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values
Makes use of science, research and evidence to guide decision-making in applied and clinical settings.
Healthcare and applied knowledge grows fast, and is vast already
Skills to integrate best available info with clin expertise, patient values, health care environment
Avoid uncritical acceptance of usual practice
Ask the right question. Access relevant evidence. Appraise the evidence. Apply the evidence (e.g., intervention, assessment tool) Assess its effectiveness.
Head start in finding relevant info
Provides checklist for main concepts included in search strategy
Makes finding info fast
Population/Patient/Problem
Intervention (Exposure in PECO)
Comparison
Outcome
PsychInfo, Scopus, Cochrane, Cinahl, Medline
Collection of evidence-based medicine databases, adhering to a strict process that minimises bias and ensures reliability, has a protocol for evaluations
Pyramid of evidence based on how good it is likely to be
Systematic reviews/meta analyses (filtered information, analysis of large numbers of studies)
Randomised Controlled Trials (participants randomly assigned to at least two interventions, one must be a control)
Control trial without randomisation
Case control studies (using existing records to identify things, medical records, etc. always retrospective, doesn’t prove causality) same level as cohort
Cohort studies (examine groups based on variables, no random assignment)
Systematic review of qualitative or descriptive
Qualitative or descriptive
Opinion/consensus
Systematic review: Analysis of results, strengths and weaknesses of studies that relate to a particular (PICO) question.
Meta-analysis: statistical evaluation of all relevant studies, DV is effect size as common metric across studies, IV is study characteristics.
The value of these analyses is based on the value of the studies they review, a large, well-run RCT may be better than a review of many less powerful RCTs
Eliminate bias in treatment assignment Facilitates blinding (masking) of treatments to investigators, participants and assessors (including possible use of a placebo)
Require rigorous control of allocation
Often long and expensive
Can’t examine rare conditions or problems with long latency
Generalisability (screens out vulnerable groups)
Is it ethical to withhold treatment?
Detemining whether exposure to something is linked to an outcome by use of existing records
Always retrospective
Useful to investigate rare diseases and disease outbreaks
Pros: quick simple and cheap
Cons: association not causal, vulnerable to bias and weaker evidence
Examine groups that are linked and follow over time, observe what’s happed to the group exposed to some variable. Can be prospective or retrospective. Better causal and generalisability than case control, as well as rare exposure but expensive and need large sample over long term.
What was the aim of the study? To describe study pop (PO questions) or quantify relationship between factors (PICO)
If PICO, was the intervention randomly allocated? Yes experimental/RCT, No Observational
If observational, when were the outcomes determined? (after invention/exposure, it’s cohort-prospective. Simultaneous, it’s cross sectional. Before, it’s case control-retrospective or historic cohort).