BEYOND RESEARCH LITERATURE: CLINICIANS' PERSPECTIVES OF "EVIDENCE" IN EVERYDAY PRACTICE

Background: Clinical professionals are called to be increasingly “evidence-based,” yet growing research suggests that “evidence” is defined differently in research and practice (Thomas & Law, 2013). Method: A... [ view full abstract ]

Background:
Clinical professionals are called to be increasingly “evidence-based,” yet growing research suggests that “evidence” is defined differently in research and practice (Thomas & Law, 2013).

Method:
A descriptive study used focus groups with qualitative content analysis to examine the perspectives of six school-based practitioners in relation to definition, generation and use of “evidence.”

Results:
Two types of evidence emerged: evidence obtained outside the intervention context and internalized by practitioners, and evidence obtained within the intervention context. All data guiding decision-making was considered evidence, with three analyses (activity, contextual, individual) identified in its gathering and use.

Conclusion:
Results reflect literature reporting: 1) clinicians’ beliefs that evidence is more than research literature alone (Ibid, 2013); b) the internalization of research by clinicians for use in practice (Gabbay & le May, 2004); and, c) the presence of both research and client evidence in making clinical decisions (Copley et al., 2010).

Application to Practice:
Evidence-based practice processes are further explained, supporting a greater use of practice evidence than what is traditionally described in the literature.

References: