Strategies for reporting research evidence and effecting change in families: What works and what hurts?

1997 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 760-760
Author(s):  
Susan D. Holloway
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
What Works

Anatomy of an Evidence Base

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 454-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Malouf ◽  
Juliana M. Taymans
Keyword(s):  
Education Policy ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Intervention Effect ◽  
What Works ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Education Interventions ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Adequate Research

An analysis was conducted of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) research evidence base on the effectiveness of replicable education interventions. Most interventions were found to have little or no support from technically adequate research studies, and intervention effect sizes were of questionable magnitude to meet education policy goals. These findings painted a dim picture of the evidence base on education interventions and indicated a need for new approaches, including a reexamination of federal reliance on experimental impact research as the basis for gauging intervention effectiveness.

scholarly journals Smoking amongst adults experiencing homelessness: a systematic review of prevalence rates, interventions and the barriers and facilitators to quitting and staying quit

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirstie Soar ◽  
Lynne Dawkins ◽  
Deborah Robson ◽  
Sharon Cox
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Smoking Prevalence ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Smoking Reduction ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
What Works ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractBackgroundTo date, there has been no review of the research evidence examining smoking cessation among homeless adults. The current review aimed to: (i) estimate smoking prevalence in homeless populations; (ii) explore the efficacy of smoking cessation and smoking reduction interventions for homeless individuals; and (iii) describe the barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation and smoking reduction.MethodSystematic review of peer-reviewed research. Data sources included electronic academic databases. Search terms: ‘smoking’ AND ‘homeless’ AND ‘tobacco’, including adult (18+ years) smokers accessing homeless support services.ResultsFifty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 46 USA). Data could not be meta-analysed due to large methodological inconsistencies and the lack of randomised controlled trials. Smoking prevalence ranged from 57% to 82%. Although there was no clear evidence on which cessation methods work best, layered approaches with additions to usual care seemed to offer modest enhancements in quit rates. Key barriers to cessation exist around the priority of smoking, beliefs around negative impact on mental health and substance use, and environmental influences.ConclusionsHomeless smokers will benefit from layered interventions which support many of their competing needs. To best understand what works, future recommendations include the need for consensus on the reporting of cessation outcomes.

Disseminating, Teaching, and Implementing Evidence-Based Practices

2016 ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
John C. Norcross ◽  
Thomas P. Hogan ◽  
Gerald P. Koocher ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
What Works ◽  
System P

Moving research evidence from science to service, from the lab bench to the bedside, poses a challenge for evidence-based practices (EBPs). Translation(al) research inclusively refers to the process of successfully moving research-supported discoveries into established practice and policy. This chapter begins with synopses of the empirical research on predicting adoption of EBP and the barriers to its implementation. The chapter then reviews effective methods for disseminating, teaching, and implementing EBPs. Like EBP itself, the new field of implementation science sensitively integrates the best research evidence, clinical expertise, and staff characteristics and preferences into deciding what works in each unique healthcare system.

Essential elements of treatment and care in high secure forensic inpatient services: an expert consensus study

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Tapp ◽  
Fiona Warren ◽  
Chris Fife-Schaw ◽  
Derek Perkins ◽  
Estelle Moore
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
Hospital Services ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Forensic Patients ◽  
What Works ◽  
High Security

Purpose – The evidence base for what works with forensic patients in high-security inpatient settings has typically focused on outcome research and not included clinical expertise from practice-based experience, which is an important facet of evidence-based practice. The purpose of this paper is to establish whether experts with clinical and/or research experience in this setting could reach consensus on elements of high-security hospital services that would be essential to the rehabilitation of forensic patients. Design/methodology/approach – A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to achieve this aim. Experts were invited to rate agreement with elements of practice and interventions derived from existing research evidence and patient perspectives on what worked. Experts were also invited to propose elements of hospital treatment based on their individual knowledge and experience. Findings – In the first round 54 experts reached consensus on 27 (out of 39) elements that included physical (e.g. use of CCTV), procedural (e.g. managing restricted items) and relational practices (e.g. promoting therapeutic alliances), and to a lesser extent-specific medical, psychological and social interventions. In total, 16 additional elements were also proposed by experts. In round 2 experts (n=45) were unable to reach a consensus on how essential each of the described practices were. In round 3 (n=35), where group consensus feedback from round 2 was provided, consensus was still not reached. Research limitations/implications – Patient case complexity, interventions with overlapping outcomes and a chequered evidence base history for this population are offered as explanations for this finding alongside limitations with the Delphi method. Practical implications – Based on the consensus for essential elements derived from research evidence and patient experience, high-secure hospital services might consider those practices and interventions that experts agreed were therapeutic options for reducing risk of offending, improving interpersonal skills and therapeutic interactions with patients, and mental health restoration. Originality/value – The study triangulates what works research evidence from this type of forensic setting and is the first to use a Delphi survey in an attempt to collate this information.

scholarly journals Enabling knowledge brokerage intermediaries to be evidence-informed

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gough ◽  
Chris Maidment ◽  
Jonathan Sharples
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Knowledge Mobilisation ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
What Works ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Knowledge Brokerage ◽  
Theories Of Change ◽  
Evaluation And Monitoring ◽  
Use Of Research

Target audience: What Works Centres; other intermediary brokerage agencies; their funders and users; and researchers of research use.Background: Knowledge brokerage and knowledge mobilisation (KM) are generic terms used to describe activities to enable the use of research evidence to inform policy, practice and individual decision making. Knowledge brokerage intermediary (KBI) initiatives facilitate such use of research evidence. This debate paper argues that although the work of KBIs is to enable evidence-informed decision making (EIDM), they may not always be overt and consistent in how they follow the principles of EIDM in their own practice.Key points for discussion: Drawing on examples from existing brokerage initiatives, four areas are suggested where KBIs could be more evidence-informed in their work: (1) needs analysis: evidence-informed in their analysis of where and how the KBI can best contribute to the existing evidence ecosystem; (2) methods and theories of change: evidence-informed in the methods that the KBI uses to achieve its goals; (3) evidence standards: credible standards for making evidence claims; and (4) evaluation and monitoring: evidence-informed evaluation of their own activities and contribution to the knowledge base on evidence use. For each of these areas, questions are suggested for considering the extent that the principles are being followed in practice.Conclusions and implications: KBIs work with evidence but they may not always be evidence-informed in their practice. KBIs could benefit from more overtly attending to the extent that they apply the logic of EIDM to how they work. In doing so, KBIs can advance both the study, and practice, of using research evidence to inform decision making.

scholarly journals Evidence-based Educational Policy Research: Some Questions

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Zepke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
What Works

Hotly contested debates about evidence-based educational research, policy development and practice have become a feature of the educational landscape in New Zealand as elsewhere. Advocates argue that applying scientifically established research evidence of what works is the way to improve educational quality and student outcomes. Governments in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand support the development of scientific evidence-based policy and practice that shows what works. Doubters are not questioning the importance of scientific research evidence. Indeed it seems untenable to deny the centrality of evidence in decision-making about what works in education. Rather, sceptics and opponents question meanings of key terms like “science”, “evidence” and “quality”. They question the politics behind evidence-based research, assumptions about the nature of evidence, science and research methodology and whether research that aims to provide universal answers actually works. This article canvasses these questions. Written from a sceptical perspective, it draws on experiences from the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document