Search Results

The process and philosophy of evidence-informed practice and its utility in the helping professions including child welfare practices and policies is described in this chapter. This is distinguished from the view of evidence-based practice as using empirically based practices — the EBPs approach. The role of clinical expertise in integrating information from multiple sources such as characteristics of clients and their circumstances including their preferences and actions as well as research evidence is highlighted. Hallmarks of evidence-informed practice are reviewed and the implications of the philosophy of evidence-based practice described. Hallmarks include moving away from authoritarian practices and policies, honoring ethical obligations, making practices, policies, and their outcomes transparent, maximizing knowledge flow and using a systemic approach for integrating practical, ethical, and evidentiary issues that attends to organizational variables including funding patterns. Objections, controversies and barriers regarding evidence-based practices are reviewed.

This chapter examines several reasons for the existence of the knowledge—practice gap; a gap between the practice choices of school social workers, and research on school-based prevention and intervention as well as contemporary education models. It presents three plausible explanations for the knowledge—practice gap: (1) lack of practitioner familiarity with the knowledge base; (2) barriers to implementing principles and specific empirically supported treatments (ESTs) emerging from the knowledge base, and (3) a privileging of practice wisdom over empirical research, resulting in a rejection of current school-based research. It introduces the evidence-informed practice (EIP) process that has been proposed in social work and other disciplines to address the research—practice gap. While EIP has intuitive appeal, it has also received much criticism from the practice community. These criticisms, many of which are legitimate, have undoubtedly contributed to the slow embracing of EIP in practice.

This chapter argues that evidence-informed school social work practitioners adopt a process of lifelong learning that involves regularly posing questions of direct practical importance to clients; engaging in a search for the best available evidence privileging the school-based prevention and intervention research and contemporary education frameworks; and taking appropriate action in a transparent collaboration that is in concert with children's, teachers', and parents' goals and preferences. Many times, this will involve deciding with them to implement the most empirically validated treatment available, but only after the school social worker and child, teacher, or parent have joined in the evidence-informed practice (EIP) process outlined in this chapter.

This chapter synthesizes and integrates the reflections offered in Chapters 4-12. These lessons learned are organized around the eight-step evidence-informed practice (EIP) process for school social workers detailed in Chapter 3.

This chapter situates clinical data-mining (CDM) specifically as a “practice-based research” strategy rather than as an example of “research-based practice.” The latter more closely approximates evidence-based practice (EBP). In making this distinction, the chapter describes the underlying epistemological assumptions of each. It briefly reviews some less successful prior practice-research integration efforts and how they prepared the ground for CDM. It locates CDM in the context of the current EBP movement and introduces the idea of a less hierarchical “evidence-informed” model of practice-research integration. This more inclusive practice-research integration paradigm is dubbed as “Evidence-Informed Practice” (EIP).

This chapter considers the more painful and problematic notions of evidence-informed practice; that is, interventions that have the potential to harm school clients. Specifically, it shows how good intentions, “authority-based practice,” and poor understanding of what makes an intervention potentially harmful, have come together in several situations to create so-called “iatrogenic school-based interventions”.

A recent survey conducted by the authors shows that divorce and separation of parents rated highest among the family-based stressors that school social workers reported seeing in their practice. This chapter shows how to conduct an evidence-informed practice (EIP) process, grounded in the best available evidence, for group school-based interventions for children coping with divorce. It also pays close attention to how these interventions can be adapted and applied in a range of school contexts.

This chapter discusses how to locate, appraise, adapt, and apply empirically supported Tier 2 interventions as an essential component of response to intervention (RTI). These ideas come from national survey data, in which a significant number of respondents (70%) said that they regularly try to “lead effective small groups with students as a prevention activity.” The chapter also demonstrates how to monitor the progress of students receiving Tier 2 interventions and evaluates the effectiveness of interventions employed using an evidence-informed practice (EBP) perspective.

Mandatory milk fortification with vitamin D (MMFVD) is a public health policy intervention for reducing vitamin D deficiency among the population. It was the case study selected to assess and analyse food fortification as a policy option to tackle public health problems that arise when there is a reduction in exposure to the primary source of a nutrient. MMFVD is moderately effective and equitable in reducing the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, though it is associated with risk of exposing certain groups to excessive amounts of the nutrient. Ethically, the apparent significant prevalence of vitamin D deficiency suggests there is some justification for MMFVD. However, the overarching challenge in assessing MMFVD is the extent of scientific uncertainties associated with its potential benefits and risks. Nevertheless, prominent policy processes are using an approach to evidence-informed practice that is framing vitamin D deficiency to effectively privilege micronutrient interventions as preferred policy solutions.