Dataset Information

Evidence-Based Practice: Separating Science From Pseudoscience.

ABSTRACT: Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires that clinicians be guided by the best available evidence. In this article, we address the impact of science and pseudoscience on psychotherapy in psychiatric practice. We describe the key principles of evidence-based intervention. We describe pseudoscience and provide illustrative examples of popular intervention practices that have not been abandoned, despite evidence that they are not efficacious and may be harmful. We distinguish efficacy from effectiveness, and describe modular approaches to treatment. Reasons for the persistence of practices that are not evidence based are examined at both the individual and the professional system level. Finally, we offer suggestions for the promotion of EBP through clinical practice guidelines, modelling of scientific decision making, and training in core skills.

SUBMITTER: Lee CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4679161 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence-Based Practice: Separating Science From Pseudoscience.

Lee Catherine M CM Hunsley John J

Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 20151201 12

Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires that clinicians be guided by the best available evidence. In this article, we address the impact of science and pseudoscience on psychotherapy in psychiatric practice. We describe the key principles of evidence-based intervention. We describe pseudoscience and provide illustrative examples of popular intervention practices that have not been abandoned, despite evidence that they are not efficacious and may be harmful. We distinguish efficacy from effectiven ...[more]

PMID: 26720821

Similar Datasets

Project description:Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.

Project description:IntroductionMost of the EBP measuring instruments available to date present limitations both in the operationalisation of the construct and also in the rigour of their psychometric development, as revealed in the literature review performed. The aim of this paper is to provide rigorous and adequate reliability and validity evidence of the scores of a new transdisciplinary psychometric tool, the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice (HS-EBP), for measuring the construct EBP in Health Sciences professionals.MethodsA pilot study and a subsequent two-stage validation test sample were conducted to progressively refine the instrument until a reduced 60-item version with a five-factor latent structure. Reliability was analysed through both Cronbach's alpha coefficient and intraclass correlations (ICC). Latent structure was contrasted using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) following a model comparison aproach. Evidence of criterion validity of the scores obtained was achieved by considering attitudinal resistance to change, burnout, and quality of professional life as criterion variables; while convergent validity was assessed using the Spanish version of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ-19).ResultsAdequate evidence of both reliability and ICC was obtained for the five dimensions of the questionnaire. According to the CFA model comparison, the best fit corresponded to the five-factor model (RMSEA = 0.049; CI 90% RMSEA = [0.047; 0.050]; CFI = 0.99). Adequate criterion and convergent validity evidence was also provided. Finally, the HS-EBP showed the capability to find differences between EBP training levels as an important evidence of decision validity.ConclusionsReliability and validity evidence obtained regarding the HS-EBP confirm the adequate operationalisation of the EBP construct as a process put into practice to respond to every clinical situation arising in the daily practice of professionals in health sciences (transprofessional). The tool could be useful for EBP individual assessment and for evaluating the impact of specific interventions to improve EBP.

Dataset Information

Evidence-Based Practice: Separating Science From Pseudoscience.

Publications

Evidence-Based Practice: Separating Science From Pseudoscience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets