Reconsidering the 'idea' of evidence in evidence-based policy and practice. Issue 3 (3rd July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mullen, Edward J.
• Is Part Of: European journal of social work. Volume 19:Issue 3/4(2016)
• Page Start: 310
• Page End: 335
• Publication Date: 2016-07-03
• Subjects: evidence-based practice -- evidence-based policy -- evidence-based medicine -- evidence-based social work -- evidence -- philosophy of evidence-based practice; Evidenzbasierte Praxis -- evidenzbasierte Politik -- evidenzbasierte Medizin -- evidenzbasierte Sozialarbeit -- Evidenz -- Philosopie der evidenzbasierten Praxis; Social service -- Europe -- Periodicals; Social service -- Vocational guidance -- Europe -- Periodicals; 361.3209405
• DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1022716
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-1457

Abstract

Abstract : Evidence-based policy and practice (EBP) has become an important social work conceptual framework. Yet, the core EBP concept, the concept of evidence, remains ill-defined. I propose a modification of the concept of evidence as applied to EBP effectiveness questions. As a basis for this reformulation ideas about evidence are examined from cross-disciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives including epistemology, philosophy of science, evidence-science, and law. I propose that for EBP effectiveness questions: (1) to be considered 'relevant evidence' an explanatory connection between an intervention and an outcome must be established rather than a mere association; (2) the EBP definition of 'best available evidence' should include total available evidence (rather than a subset) about effectiveness, causal roles (i.e., mechanisms), and support factors and be inclusive of high-quality experimental and observational studies as well as high-quality mechanistic reasoning; (3) the familiar five-step EBP process should be expanded to include formulation of warranted, evidence-based arguments and that evidence appraisal be guided by three high level criteria of relevance, credibility, and strength rather than rigid evidence hierarchies; (4) comparative effectiveness research strategies, especially pragmatic controlled studies, hold promise for providing relevant and actionable evidence needed for policy and practice decision-making and successful implementation.