practice informed research social work examples

Social Work Research Methods That Drive the Practice

Social workers advocate for the well-being of individuals, families and communities. But how do social workers know what interventions are needed to help an individual? How do they assess whether a treatment plan is working? What do social workers use to write evidence-based policy?

Social work involves research-informed practice and practice-informed research. At every level, social workers need to know objective facts about the populations they serve, the efficacy of their interventions and the likelihood that their policies will improve lives. A variety of social work research methods make that possible.

Data-Driven Work

Data is a collection of facts used for reference and analysis. In a field as broad as social work, data comes in many forms.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

As with any research, social work research involves both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Quantitative Research

Answers to questions like these can help social workers know about the populations they serve — or hope to serve in the future.

• How many students currently receive reduced-price school lunches in the local school district?
• How many hours per week does a specific individual consume digital media?
• How frequently did community members access a specific medical service last year?

Quantitative data — facts that can be measured and expressed numerically — are crucial for social work.

Quantitative research has advantages for social scientists. Such research can be more generalizable to large populations, as it uses specific sampling methods and lends itself to large datasets. It can provide important descriptive statistics about a specific population. Furthermore, by operationalizing variables, it can help social workers easily compare similar datasets with one another.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative data — facts that cannot be measured or expressed in terms of mere numbers or counts — offer rich insights into individuals, groups and societies. It can be collected via interviews and observations.

• What attitudes do students have toward the reduced-price school lunch program?
• What strategies do individuals use to moderate their weekly digital media consumption?
• What factors made community members more or less likely to access a specific medical service last year?

Qualitative research can thereby provide a textured view of social contexts and systems that may not have been possible with quantitative methods. Plus, it may even suggest new lines of inquiry for social work research.

Mixed Methods Research

Combining quantitative and qualitative methods into a single study is known as mixed methods research. This form of research has gained popularity in the study of social sciences, according to a 2019 report in the academic journal Theory and Society. Since quantitative and qualitative methods answer different questions, merging them into a single study can balance the limitations of each and potentially produce more in-depth findings.

However, mixed methods research is not without its drawbacks. Combining research methods increases the complexity of a study and generally requires a higher level of expertise to collect, analyze and interpret the data. It also requires a greater level of effort, time and often money.

The Importance of Research Design

Data-driven practice plays an essential role in social work. Unlike philanthropists and altruistic volunteers, social workers are obligated to operate from a scientific knowledge base.

To know whether their programs are effective, social workers must conduct research to determine results, aggregate those results into comprehensible data, analyze and interpret their findings, and use evidence to justify next steps.

Employing the proper design ensures that any evidence obtained during research enables social workers to reliably answer their research questions.

Research Methods in Social Work

The various social work research methods have specific benefits and limitations determined by context. Common research methods include surveys, program evaluations, needs assessments, randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies and single-system designs.

Surveys involve a hypothesis and a series of questions in order to test that hypothesis. Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends.

Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable. However, surveys generally require large participant groups, and self-reports from survey respondents are not always reliable.

Program Evaluations

Social workers ally with all sorts of programs: after-school programs, government initiatives, nonprofit projects and private programs, for example.

Crucially, social workers must evaluate a program’s effectiveness in order to determine whether the program is meeting its goals and what improvements can be made to better serve the program’s target population.

Evidence-based programming helps everyone save money and time, and comparing programs with one another can help social workers make decisions about how to structure new initiatives. Evaluating programs becomes complicated, however, when programs have multiple goal metrics, some of which may be vague or difficult to assess (e.g., “we aim to promote the well-being of our community”).

Needs Assessments

Social workers use needs assessments to identify services and necessities that a population lacks access to.

Common social work populations that researchers may perform needs assessments on include:

• People in a specific income group
• Everyone in a specific geographic region
• A specific ethnic group
• People in a specific age group

In the field, a social worker may use a combination of methods (e.g., surveys and descriptive studies) to learn more about a specific population or program. Social workers look for gaps between the actual context and a population’s or individual’s “wants” or desires.

For example, a social worker could conduct a needs assessment with an individual with cancer trying to navigate the complex medical-industrial system. The social worker may ask the client questions about the number of hours they spend scheduling doctor’s appointments, commuting and managing their many medications. After learning more about the specific client needs, the social worker can identify opportunities for improvements in an updated care plan.

In policy and program development, social workers conduct needs assessments to determine where and how to effect change on a much larger scale. Integral to social work at all levels, needs assessments reveal crucial information about a population’s needs to researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders. Needs assessments may fall short, however, in revealing the root causes of those needs (e.g., structural racism).

Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials are studies in which a randomly selected group is subjected to a variable (e.g., a specific stimulus or treatment) and a control group is not. Social workers then measure and compare the results of the randomized group with the control group in order to glean insights about the effectiveness of a particular intervention or treatment.

Randomized controlled trials are easily reproducible and highly measurable. They’re useful when results are easily quantifiable. However, this method is less helpful when results are not easily quantifiable (i.e., when rich data such as narratives and on-the-ground observations are needed).

Descriptive Studies

Descriptive studies immerse the researcher in another context or culture to study specific participant practices or ways of living. Descriptive studies, including descriptive ethnographic studies, may overlap with and include other research methods:

• Informant interviews
• Census data
• Observation

By using descriptive studies, researchers may glean a richer, deeper understanding of a nuanced culture or group on-site. The main limitations of this research method are that it tends to be time-consuming and expensive.

Single-System Designs

Unlike most medical studies, which involve testing a drug or treatment on two groups — an experimental group that receives the drug/treatment and a control group that does not — single-system designs allow researchers to study just one group (e.g., an individual or family).

Single-system designs typically entail studying a single group over a long period of time and may involve assessing the group’s response to multiple variables.

For example, consider a study on how media consumption affects a person’s mood. One way to test a hypothesis that consuming media correlates with low mood would be to observe two groups: a control group (no media) and an experimental group (two hours of media per day). When employing a single-system design, however, researchers would observe a single participant as they watch two hours of media per day for one week and then four hours per day of media the next week.

These designs allow researchers to test multiple variables over a longer period of time. However, similar to descriptive studies, single-system designs can be fairly time-consuming and costly.

Learn More About Social Work Research Methods

Social workers have the opportunity to improve the social environment by advocating for the vulnerable — including children, older adults and people with disabilities — and facilitating and developing resources and programs.

Learn more about how you can earn your  Master of Social Work online at Virginia Commonwealth University . The highest-ranking school of social work in Virginia, VCU has a wide range of courses online. That means students can earn their degrees with the flexibility of learning at home. Learn more about how you can take your career in social work further with VCU.

From M.S.W. to LCSW: Understanding Your Career Path as a Social Worker

How Palliative Care Social Workers Support Patients With Terminal Illnesses

How to Become a Social Worker in Health Care

Gov.uk, Mixed Methods Study

MVS Open Press, Foundations of Social Work Research

Open Social Work Education, Scientific Inquiry in Social Work

Open Social Work, Graduate Research Methods in Social Work: A Project-Based Approach

Routledge, Research for Social Workers: An Introduction to Methods

SAGE Publications, Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach

Theory and Society, Mixed Methods Research: What It Is and What It Could Be

READY TO GET STARTED WITH OUR ONLINE M.S.W. PROGRAM FORMAT?

Bachelor’s degree is required.

VCU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our privacy policy .

Field Educator: A Scholarly Journal from the Simmons University School of Social Work

• ISSN 2165-3038
• How to Submit
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Integrating Practice Research into Social Work Field Education
• Volume 11.1 | Spring 2021 |
• Field Scholar |

Social work field education is considered a key element of social work education. While many field education placements traditionally have focused on teaching practice-based skills and integrating theory into practice, it is also critical to incorporate research into social work practice and field education. This article discusses how practice research can be integrated into social work field education by drawing upon a training module designed for this purpose by the Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TFEL) partnership. Implications and recommendations for practice research and field educators are provided.

Keywords : field education; practice research; social work; practicum/internship

Field education, also referred to as the signature pedagogy of social work (Council on Social Work Education, 2015), commonly accompanies coursework to enable students to connect classroom theory with practice in professional “on-the-ground” experiences (Bogo & Sewell, 2019). While field placements, practica, and internships are utilized in various disciplines, they play a critical role in social work by preparing students to provide effective services in various settings (Bogo, 2010). Within the social work field education domain, traditional student placements have tended to adopt one-on-one tutoring, role modelling, and mentoring of students by field instructors (Ayala et al., 2018; Bogo, 2010). While this model has been and is currently one of the most prominent models of social work field education, many authors have commented on how the traditional model of social work field education is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain (Ayala & Drolet, 2014; Ayala et al., 2018; Bellinger, 2010; Drolet, 2020).

Considering these observations, Ayala and colleagues (2018) interviewed Canadian field coordinators about addressing existing challenges within social work field education. They compiled several promising and wise practices that potentially could be used to move the state of social work field education from crisis to sustainability. These practices included designing and implementing alternative placement models and enhancing training of field instructors and faculty liaisons. In considering these promising practices suggested by Ayala and colleagues, the Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TFEL) partnership initiated the development of a field instructor training module for the Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE). The training module focuses on creating strategies to assist field instructors in integrating practice research into social work field education. In combination with attempting to give field instructors the tools and knowledge needed to incorporate practice research within their workplace context, the module also seeks to bridge the gap between research and practice, and to demonstrate how these can be understood as parallel processes. Drawing from a literature review and consultations with TFEL members, the module has been developed further into an online course for students, social work educators and researchers, and other social work professionals. The online course is designed to share knowledge and understanding of practice research in order to strengthen the role of practice research in social work field education.

Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TFEL) Partnership

To date, there has been a disconnect between research and social work practice (Drolet & Harriman, 2020). Traditional formal research approaches are often viewed as being inapplicable to social work practice and inaccessible to social work students and practitioners (Driessens et al., 2011; Fook et al., 2011; Shannon, 2013). There is a need to rethink traditional approaches to teaching research in order to provide practical, hands-on learning opportunities that engage students (Benson & Blackman, 2003; Freymond et al., 2014; Trevisan, 2002). The Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TFEL) partnership aims to better prepare the next generation of social workers in Canada by creating training and mentoring opportunities for students, developing and mobilizing innovative and promising field education practices, and improving the integration of research and practice in field education (Drolet, 2020). This article is based on the findings of a literature review conducted on practice research and social work field education. The findings of the review informed the development of a practice research training module that was designed to better integrate practice research in social work field education. By creating multiple online training modules on practice research for diverse audiences including field instructors, students, social work educators, and researchers, the TFEL partnership aims to build capacity for bridging the gap between research and practice in field education. We hope that this article will invoke a sense of curiosity on practice research and provide information on how practice research can be integrated into social work field education.

Bringing Practice Research and Social Work Field Education Together

In recent years, many social work scholars have described how the profession requires incorporating a greater understanding of research into social work practice (Teater, 2017). Despite good intentions and the pursuit of the “social good,” social work can often lack accurate measurements of effective practice (Cabassa, 2016). Considering these shortcomings, social work must develop more intervention research that emerges from practice in order to maintain competency and proficiency (Fortune et al., 2010). Researchers and practitioners alike are witnessing the need, if the profession is to move forward, for social work research no longer to remain in the profession’s background, but to be incorporated into practice and emerge in an inseparable and interdependent manner (Webber & Carr, 2015, pp. 3–21). Often, research and practice are viewed as distinct and separate elements of the profession. Yet it is becoming increasingly evident that research and practice are both more effective when they function as collaborative processes.

In response to the need to incorporate research more effectively into social work practice, some educational institutions, workplaces, and practitioners have utilized a collaborative research process termed “practice research” to bridge the gap between research and practice. As new social work practitioners are educated and prepared for professional practice, it is of utmost importance that they are prepared to carry out their duties to the best of their abilities, generate new knowledge, and enhance practice strategies. By utilizing practice research in social work field education, social work students and practitioners will be better prepared to harness curiosity and research collaboratively to improve practice. We believe the profession of social work, through integrating practice research, will advance research-informed practice and practice-informed research.

For many social work practitioners and students, the thought of research can elicit feelings of anxiety, dread, and confusion (Wahler, 2019). However, when research is viewed as a regular part of daily practice, feelings of comfort and excitement about new opportunities can emerge. When closely examined, research and practice strategies can be considered parallel processes. Within both traditional practice and research settings, questions are raised, answers are pursued, and knowledge is discovered and developed. These parallel processes of research and practice have been expanded upon in detail through the development of the “Research As Daily Practice” philosophy created by Sally St. George, Dan Wulff, and Karl Tomm (St. George et al., 2015).

“Research As Daily Practice”

For many years, social work clinicians and educators Dan Wulff and Sally St. George have been advocating the notion of “Research As Daily Practice” (St. George, et al., 2015). Their work has identified how research and clinical practice overlap and share similar steps, procedures, and strategies. The core of their philosophy is the belief that “practitioners are researchers because they use inquiring processes to make quality decisions in their daily practice (gathering data, organizing the data to better explain phenomena, constructing a plan of action, implementing the plan, observing the effects, gathering more data)” (St. George et al., 2015, p. 5). When social work practitioners perceive themselves as active investigators and knowledge developers in practice, research becomes the tool to improve practice and push the profession forward. We believe that adopting a research-informed approach to practice, such as viewing research as a part of daily practice, is crucial for effective practice and practice research utilization within social work field education.

Defining Practice Research

The term “practice research” is used across disciplines to explain the negotiated process between practice (service providers and service users) and research (researchers and educators) working collaboratively to understand and address challenges, develop new knowledge on a subject matter, and address existing gaps between research and practice (Fisher et al., 2016). At the core of practice research is a focus on learning, sharing, and seeking to understand individual, group, and organizational environments (Joubert & Webber, 2020). While the methods through which practice research can be carried out vary, effective practice research involves pursuing curiosity about practice through collaborative means (Austin & Isokuortti, 2016). These elements of curiosity and collaboration are essential to both practice research and field education. Curiosity can be a catalyst to seeking and developing promising strategies to meet practice needs. When multiple parties with different perspectives can harness their curiosity, a critical examination of practice can often occur, which can lead to the “development of new ideas in the light of experience” (Austin & Isokuortti, 2016, p. 11).

While curiosity is a cornerstone of effective practice research, it is through collaboration that practice research becomes increasingly valuable. Practice research is often conducted through collaborative partnerships by a range of stakeholders to enhance understanding of practice issues and enrich practice strategies (Fouché, 2016). At a fundamental level, practice research is the process through which ideas, problems, or concepts found in practice are expounded upon through a research undertaking. When utilizing practice research, collaborators can pursue knowledge through informal or formal research designs, with the central premise being that the research generat knowledge to improve practice.

Practice Research Operationalized

In seeking to implement practice research in a social work setting, it is important to note that there is not one overarching methodology or formula that will work in every context. Instead, effective practice research methods tend to emerge organically through researchers’ and practitioners’ strategic collaborations based on their practice context and research questions. Effective methods are typically based on a research question that emerges from a practice issue. These methods must be conducted in a mutually beneficial process for all the collaborators involved in the practice research setting.

For those seeking more direction in designing a practice research study, Miller (2019) outlines a process in which the practitioners and researchers (“enablers”) work together to compile an effective agency report that follows a rigid methodological approach. In their approach, the enabler and the practitioners work collaboratively to identify an issue to investigate, discuss the issue, and narrow down a specific research question that meets the needs of the practice agency. The practitioner is supported in the data collection process by the enabler. The enabler usually will take the lead in data analysis, with direction from the practitioners, to ensure that the data accurately addresses the research question. The results typically culminate in some change to practice in the agency (Miller, 2019, pp. 682–683).

One of Miller’s (2019) strengths in this example is that the author presents the researcher as an enabler and enhancer of practice. While suggesting roles within the research process such as “enabler” and “enhancer” can be beneficial in highlighting where students may be able to utilize practice research within field education, these labels must be used judiciously, so as not to separate the elements of practice and research. Such a separation may create an insider/outsider argument, such as questioning who the real researcher might be. It is important to remember that practice research includes the notion that research can be conducted through inquiry at all levels of practice through a methodological research process. Miller’s example shows the importance of viewing the research and practice partnership as a method to increase practice competencies and to discover critical areas for further research. While this approach may be beneficial for some to follow, others may prefer a less formal process that invites cocreating a practice research framework based upon the practice setting and the investigators available.

Practice Research on a Continuum

To assist practitioners and students in implementing practice research in field education, we have outlined the multiple continual stages and central themes that we believe the practice research process can contain. This process is illustrated below in Figure 1.

While we believe that these themes and stages can help organize and implement practice research within the field education context, we also accept that it is valuable to see practice research as on a continuum. Viewing practice research on a continuum allows for the notion that research is continually growing, evolving, and changing over time. This means that practice researchers can be in multiple stages at any given time, and that the research process can be continually renegotiated and improved to better meet the research and practice objectives. As we have identified multiple themes that students and field instructors may find to represent their current process, we also propose that curiosity, reflection, and collaboration are three central themes that must be present for effective practice research to be conducted. We have confidence that students and field instructors can create their own practice research projects collaboratively through utilizing this framework of practice research on a continuum. This framework may be beneficial for simplifying the practice research process, which can allow for both students and field instructors to identify important research questions and the proper strategies needed for investigation. We also recognize the importance of integrating practice research activities in field learning agreement contracts, integration seminars, assignments, and readings.

Recommendations and Implications for Integrating Practice Research into Social Work Field Education

The curiosity that drives inquiry and investigation forms the foundation of integrating research in field education (St. George et al., 2015). For practice research to be integrated successfully into social work field education, the research must be relevant and based on local practice topics that are meaningful, important, and appropriate for investigation. When considering integrating practice research into field education, it must be ensured that the research meets the needs of the agency, practitioners, and service users. This calls for attention with respect to caseloads, organizational patterns, and practice outcomes. These patterns can become more evident through discussions at staff meetings and case conferences, highlighting agency needs for further investigation. At this point in the process, field educators and students can commit to collaborate in the investigation of emerging curiosities and challenges. Any practice research agenda must include agency workers and respect practitioners’ time, and can either be planned out ahead of time or be a spontaneous response to an emerging need. These steps can help incorporate the utilization of practice research within social work field education.

Curiosity is but one quality motivating practice research. Walsh et al. (2019) also found that attitudes towards research, comfort level, the time involved, and interpersonal/relational factors also influence how enthusiastically students approach research. Thus, practice research is more than a cognitive exercise. Practical considerations need to be factored into any agency-based research: length of the practicum, time availability with the supervisor, and available practical resources. For this reason, it is helpful to think of practice research on a continuum so that all students can benefit from integrating research and theory into their practice.

The impetus for practice research initiatives can start in the curriculum and teaching of the social work research course. Rather than being a distant, esoteric topic, social work research courses can be designed “closer to home” where they have greater personal significance to students. Research also can be taught to create “habits of the mind” that have relevance in everyday life. Students can become disciplined to discern valid and reliable information critically, rather than accepting any opinion that catches their attention. Research does not have to be a practice that is overly formal and hard to reach. We need to bring research to the student instead of bringing the student to research. Similarly, research conducted within field education placements provides an opportunity to bring research closer to the field for agencies and field instructors.

A Continuing Need for Collaboration

In keeping with this project, field education can be transformed through joint training initiatives (Drolet & Harriman, 2020), such as between social work programs, faculty liaisons, field instructors, social work educators, students, service users, and agencies. To achieve this transformation, we need to enhance students’ knowledge and skills and build research capacity through partnered research endeavors (Drolet & Harriman, 2020, p. 4). One of the ways that this has been considered within our current context is through the creation of a practice research training module for the field instructor training hosted by the Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE). This specific module introduces field instructors to practice research, demonstrates how practice research may be used in field education, and invites field instructors to consider utilizing practice research alongside their students within their practice context. In combination with this field instructor training module, we also created an open-access practice research course that can be accessed by students, educators, field instructors, and other social work professionals interested in learning more about practice research and how it can be used within field education. In building capacity for practice research, there is value in encouraging social work educational programs and field agencies to develop more sustainable field education models and promote multidirectional exchanges of knowledge on innovations and promising practices. As it is with practice research, collaboration is a key element in the incorporation of practice research into social work field education.

Points of Consideration for Social Work Field Education Programs

As field education programs and placements consider integrating practice research into their contexts, there are several considerations that require examination. These considerations include:

• incorporating into research courses at least one project involving practice research that echoes a field situation;
• offering field instructors in-service training and workshops on using practice research in their agencies;
• clearly demonstrating how research and practice activities are parallel processes;
• developing strategies to help students and field instructors to become more comfortable and competent in developing and undertaking practice research in field education placements;
• designing learning contract agreements that incorporate, at a minimum, at least one research/practice initiative;
• facilitating the integration of research and theory into practice; and
• evaluating how practice research is adopted in the field, what challenges emerge, and how to maximize the use of practice research in field education.

Gaps and Areas of Future Research

While we have been able to identify multiple ways to integrate practice research into social work field education, we also acknowledge that the incorporation of practice research into field education is in the early stages. As we move forward with this initiative, we need to examine the various configurations of field education across Canada and internationally to identify promising practices for incorporating practice research into field education. To accomplish this, we must become aware of the challenges impacting students, field instructors, and agencies, and consider them in our approaches. As research moves forward, there is a need to expand on the suggestions in this article and demonstrate how practice research can be utilized in different types of social work field education placements and contexts.

The authors would like to acknowledge the Social Science and Humanities Research Council Partnership Grant for providing financial support to the TFEL partnership.

Austin, M. J., & Isokuortti, N. (2016). A framework for teaching practice-based research with a focus on service users. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 36 (1), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2016.1129931

Ayala, J., & Drolet, J. (2014). Special issue on social work field education. Currents: Scholarship in the Human Services, 13 (1), 1–4. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/currents/article/view/15948

Ayala, J., Drolet, J., Fulton, A., Hewson, J., Letkemann, L., Baynton, M., Elliot, G., Judge-Stasiak, A., Blaug, C., Tetrault, G., & Schweizer, E. (2018). Restructuring social work field education in 21 st century Canada. Canadian Social Work Review, 35 (2), 45–66.

Bellinger, A. (2010). Studying the landscape: Practice learning from social work reconsidered. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 29 (6), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470903508743

Benson, A., & Blackman, D. (2003). Can research methods ever be interesting? Active Learning in Higher Education, 4 (1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469787403004001004

Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving competence in social work through field education. University of Toronto Press.

Bogo, M., & Sewell, K. M. (2019). Introduction to the special issue on field education of students. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47 , 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-018-0696-z

Cabassa, L. J. (2016). Implementation science: Why it matters for the future of social work. Journal of Social Work Education , 52 (sup1), S38–S50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174648

Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Report of the CSWE summit on field education 2014. CSWE.

Driessens, K., Saurama, E., & Fargion, S. (2011). Research with social workers to improve their social interventions. European Journal of Social Work, 14 (1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2010.516629

Drolet, J. (2020). A new partnership: Transforming the field education landscape: Intersections of research and practice in Canadian social work field education. Field Educator , 10 (1), 1–18. https://fieldeducator.simmons.edu/article/transforming-the-field-education-landscape/

Drolet, J., & Harriman, K. (2020). A conversation on a new Canadian social work field education and research collaboration initiative. Field Educator, 10 (1), 1-7. https://fieldeducator.simmons.edu/article/a-conversation-on-a-new-canadian-social-work-field-education-and-research-collaboration-initiative

Fisher, M., Austin, M. J., Julkunen, I., Sim, T., Uggerhøj, L., & Isokuortti, N. (2016). Practice research. Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets . https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195389678-0232

Fook, J., Johannessen, A., & Psoinos, M. (2011). Partnership in practice research: A Norwegian experience. Social Work & Society, 9 (1), 29–44.

Fortune, A. E., McCallion, P., & Briar-Lawson, K. (2010). Social work practice research for the twenty-first century . Columbia University Press.

Fouché, C. (2016). Practice research partnerships in social work: Making a difference. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work , 28 (4), 118–119. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol28iss4id291

Freymond, N., Morgenshtern, M., Duffie, M., Hong, L., Bugeja-Freitas, S., & Eulenberg, J. (2014). Mapping MSW research training. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34 (3), 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.912998

Joubert, L. B., & Webber, M. (2020). The Routledge handbook of social work practice research . Routledge.

Miller, K. (2019). Practice research enabler: Enabling research in a social work practice context. Qualitative Social Work, 18 (4), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017751038

Shannon, P. (2013). Value-based social work research: Strategies for connecting research to the mission of social work. Critical Social Work, 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.22329/csw.v14i1.5875

St. George, S., Wulff, D., & Tomm, K. (2015). Research as daily practice. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34 (2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_890-1

Teater, B. (2017). Social work research and its relevance to practice: “The gap between research and practice continues to be wide.” Journal of Social Sciences Research, 43 (5), 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2017.1340393

Trevisan, M. S. (2002). Enhancing practical evaluation training through long-term evaluation projects. American Journal of Evaluation, 23 (1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(01)00163-1

Wahler, E. (2019). Improving student receptivity to research by linking methods to practice skills . Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39 (3), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2019.1611693

Walsh, C., Gulbrandsen, C., & Lorenzetti, L. (2019). Research practicum: An experiential model for social work research. Sage Open, 9 (2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019841922

Webber, M., & Carr, S. (2015). Applying research evidence in social work practice: Seeing beyond paradigms. In M. Webber (Ed.), Applying research evidence in social work practice . Palgrave Macmillan.

Dillon K. Traber, MSW University of Calgary Tara Collins, PhD Candidate University of Calgary Julie L. Drolet, PhD University of Calgary Diana J. Adamo, MSW Student University of Calgary Monica Franco, MSW Student University of Calgary Kristina M. Laban, MSW Student University of Calgary Sheri M. McConnell, PhD Memorial University of Newfoundland Ellen Mi, BSW Student University of Calgary Sally St. George, PhD University of Calgary Dan Wulff, PhD University of Calgary

© May 2021 Reprinting & reuse

Volume 11.1 | Spring 2021

Conversations.

• The Conversation: Dr. Melissa Reitmeier, Chair of the Council on Field Education

Field Scholar

• BSW Students in Field: Factors Contributing to the Internship Experience
• Preparing Students for Trauma Exposure in Field Education Settings
• Kudos: Dr. William Fisher retiring after a twenty-four-year career in Social Work Education
• Letter from the Editor
• Letter from the Editor: Back to the Future

Practice Digest

• Addressing Self-Care for Students and Field Educators with Mindfulness: A Collaborative Approach to Field Placement
• COVID-19: An Existential Crisis for Social Work Field Education
• Innovations to the Design and Delivery of Foundation Field Education Seminars
• Integrating Classroom and Field Assignments: Creating Comprehensive Assessment and Learning Opportunities

What We're Reading

• Recent Articles of Note

The Field Educator is published by the Simmons University School of Social Work. Learn more »

Current Volume

Field talks.

• Episode 3: Service User Perspectives in Social Work Education
• Supporting Students with Disabilities in Social Work Field Placements: What Is Being Done?
• Moving from Darkness to Light: Social Work Students’ Reflections on COVID-19 in Practice And the Future of the Profession
• Toward Understanding the Training Needs of Canadian Field Instructors
• Social Work Departmental Leadership Attitudes on Formal Mentorship: The Impact on Field Directors
• The Truth, Liberation, and Justice Project: Engaging Students in Conversations about Antiracism in Social Work

© 2024 Field Educator | Simmons School of Social Work, 300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115 | T: 617-521-3970 | F: 617-521-3980 | [email protected]

• MSW Student Handbook
• Section 3: MSW Curriculum and Degree Requirements

3.2 Social Work Core Competencies

The social work core competencies.

The MSW curriculum is organized around a set of social work core competencies, representing the dimensions of social work practice that all social workers are expected to master during their professional training. Berkeley MSW students are assessed throughout the course of their graduate study on progress to achieving each of the following social work competencies established for the Berkeley MSW Program:

Competency #1: Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior

Social workers understand the value base of the profession and its ethical standards, as well as relevant laws and regulations that may impact practice at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Social workers understand frameworks of ethical decision-making and how to apply principles of critical thinking to those frameworks in practice, research, and policy arenas. Social workers recognize personal values and the distinction between personal and professional values. They also understand how their personal experiences and affective reactions influence their professional judgment and behavior. Social workers understand the profession’s history, its mission, and the roles and responsibilities of the profession. Social Workers also understand the role of other professions when engaged in inter-professional teams. Social workers recognize the importance of life-long learning and are committed to continually updating their skills to ensure they are relevant and effective. Social workers also understand emerging forms of technology and the ethical use of technology in social work practice. Social workers:

• make ethical decisions by applying the standards of the NASW Code of Ethics, relevant laws and regulations, models for ethical decision-making, ethical conduct of research, and additional codes of ethics as appropriate to context.
• use reflection and self-regulation to manage personal values and maintain professionalism in practice situations.
• demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior; appearance; and oral, written, and electronic communication.
• use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate practice outcomes.
• use supervision and consultation to guide professional judgment and behavior.
• infuse social work principles and interactions with clients and other relevant stakeholders.

Competency #2: Engage Diversity and Difference in Practice

Social workers understand how diversity and difference characterize and shape the human experience and are critical to the formation of identity. The dimensions of diversity are understood as the intersectionality of multiple factors including but not limited to age, class, color, culture, disability and ability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, marital status, political ideology, race, religion/spirituality, sex, sexual orientation, and tribal sovereign status. Social workers understand that, as a consequence of difference, a person’s life experiences may include oppression, poverty, marginalization, and alienation as well as privilege, power, and acclaim. Social workers also understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination and recognize the extent to which a culture’s structures and values, including social, economic, political, and cultural exclusions, may oppress, marginalize, alienate, or create privilege and power. Social workers:

• apply and communicate understanding of the importance of diversity and difference in shaping life experiences in practice at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels.
• present themselves as learners and engage clients and constituencies as experts of their own experiences.
• apply self-awareness and self-regulation to manage the influence of personal biases and values in working with diverse clients and constituencies.
• use inclusive strategies that carefully consider the context of individuals, families, groups, organizations, and/or communities and challenge common assumptions, solicit ideas, and gain inspiration from clients and other relevant stakeholders.

Competency #3: Advance Human Rights and Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice

Social workers understand that every person regardless of position in society has fundamental human rights such as freedom, safety, privacy, an adequate standard of living, health care, and education. Social workers understand the global interconnections of oppression and human rights violations, and are knowledgeable about theories of human need and social justice and strategies to promote social and economic justice and human rights. Social workers understand strategies designed to eliminate oppressive structural barriers to ensure that social goods, rights, and responsibilities are distributed equitably and that civil, political, environmental, economic, social, and cultural human rights are protected. Social workers:

• apply their understanding of social, economic, and environmental justice to advocate for human rights at the individual and system levels.
• engage in practices that advance social, economic, and environmental justice.
• facilitate team and coalition-building and other collaborative strategies for promoting system change designed to reduce social and economic inequities.

Competency #4: Engage In Practice-informed Research and Research-informed Practice

Social workers understand quantitative and qualitative research methods and their respective roles in advancing a science of social work and in evaluating their practice. Social workers know the principles of logic, scientific inquiry, and culturally informed and ethical approaches to building knowledge. Social workers understand that evidence that informs practice derives from multi-disciplinary sources and multiple ways of knowing. They also understand the processes for translating research findings into effective practice. Social workers:

• use practice experience and theory to inform scientific inquiry and research.
• apply critical thinking to engage in analysis of quantitative and qualitative research methods and research findings.
• use and translate research evidence to inform and improve practice, policy, and service delivery.
• use strategies that reduce gaps between science and social work practice including the translation of research findings into social work practice and policy.

Competency #5: Engage in Policy Practice

Social workers understand that human rights and social justice, as well as social welfare and services, are mediated by policy and its implementation at the federal, state, and local levels. Social workers understand the history and current structures of social policies and services, the role of policy in service delivery, and the role of practice in policy development. Social workers understand their role in policy development and implementation within their practice settings at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels and they actively engage in policy practice to effect change within those settings. Social workers recognize and understand the historical, social, cultural, economic, organizational, environmental, and global influences that affect social policy. They are also knowledgeable about policy formulation, analysis, implementation, and evaluation. Social workers:

• identify social policy at the local, state, and federal level that impacts well-being, service delivery, and access to social services.
• assess how social welfare and economic policies impact the delivery of and access to social services.
• apply critical thinking to analyze, formulate, and advocate for policies that advance human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice.
• assess and respond to the political, resource, and technology environments that shape policy practice to effectively advocate for social and economic justice.

Competency #6: Engage with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

Social workers understand that engagement is an ongoing component of the dynamic and interactive process of social work practice with, and on behalf of, diverse individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers value the importance of human relationships. Social workers understand theories of human behavior and the social environment, and critically evaluate and apply this knowledge to facilitate engagement with clients and constituencies, including individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers understand strategies to engage diverse clients and constituencies to advance practice effectiveness. Social workers understand how their personal experiences and affective reactions may impact their ability to effectively engage with diverse clients and constituencies. Social workers value principles of relationship-building and inter-professional collaboration to facilitate engagement with clients, constituencies, and other professionals as appropriate. Social workers:

• apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks to engage with clients and constituencies.
• use empathy, reflection, and interpersonal skills to effectively engage diverse clients and constituencies.
• demonstrate high quality, evidence-informed engagement skills to address complex systems related to client or community needs in different fields of practice. 

Competency #7: Assess Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

Social workers understand that assessment is an ongoing component of the dynamic and interactive process of social work practice with, and on behalf of, diverse individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers understand theories of human behavior and the social environment, and critically evaluate and apply this knowledge in the assessment of diverse clients and constituencies, including individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers understand methods of assessment with diverse clients and constituencies to advance practice effectiveness. Social workers recognize the implications of the larger practice context in the assessment process and value the importance of interprofessional collaboration in this process. Social workers understand how their personal experiences and affective reactions may affect their assessment and decision-making. Social workers:

• collect and organize data, and apply critical thinking to interpret information from clients and constituencies.
• apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks in the analysis of assessment data from clients and constituencies.
• develop mutually agreed-on intervention goals and objectives based on the critical assessment of strengths, needs, and challenges within clients and constituencies.
• select appropriate intervention strategies based on the assessment, research knowledge, and values and preferences of clients and constituencies.
• demonstrate high quality, evidence-informed assessment skills to address and monitor complex systems related to client or community needs in different fields of practice.

Competency #8: Intervene with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

Social workers understand that intervention is an ongoing component of the dynamic and interactive process of social work practice with, and on behalf of, diverse individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers are knowledgeable about evidence-informed interventions to achieve the goals of clients and constituencies, including individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers understand theories of human behavior and the social environment, and critically evaluate and apply this knowledge to effectively intervene with clients and constituencies. Social workers understand methods of identifying, analyzing and implementing evidence-informed interventions to achieve client and constituency goals. Social workers value the importance of inter-professional teamwork and communication in interventions, recognizing that beneficial outcomes may require interdisciplinary, inter-professional, and inter-organizational collaboration. Social workers:

• critically choose and implement interventions to achieve practice goals and enhance capacities of clients and constituencies.
• apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks in interventions with clients and constituencies.
• use inter-professional collaboration as appropriate to achieve beneficial practice outcomes.
• negotiate, mediate, and advocate with and on behalf of diverse clients and constituencies.
• facilitate effective transitions and endings that advance mutually agreed-on goals.
• demonstrate high quality, evidence-informed intervention skills to address complex systems related to client or community needs in different fields of practice.

Competency #9: Evaluate Practice with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

Social workers understand that evaluation is an ongoing component of the dynamic and interactive process of social work practice with, and on behalf of, diverse individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities. Social workers recognize the importance of evaluating processes and outcomes to advance practice, policy, and service delivery effectiveness. Social workers understand theories of human behavior and the social environment, and critically evaluate and apply this knowledge in evaluating outcomes. Social workers understand qualitative and quantitative methods for evaluating outcomes and practice effectiveness. Social workers:

• select and use appropriate methods for evaluation of outcomes.
• apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks in the evaluation of outcomes.
• critically analyze, monitor, and evaluate intervention and program processes and outcomes.
• apply evaluation findings to improve practice effectiveness at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels.
• demonstrate evaluation skills to monitor complex systems related to client or community needs in different fields of practice.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

Practice research methods in social work: Processes, applications and implications for social service organisations

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Bowen McBeath, Michael J Austin, Sarah Carnochan, Emmeline Chuang, Practice research methods in social work: Processes, applications and implications for social service organisations, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 52, Issue 6, September 2022, Pages 3328–3346, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab246

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Although social work research is commonly rooted within social service settings, it can be difficult for social work researchers and practitioners to develop and sustain participatory studies that specifically promote knowledge sharing and service improvement involving organisational practice. One participatory approach is practice research (PR), which involves social work researchers and practitioners collaborating to define, understand and try to improve the delivery of health and social care services and organisational structures and processes. The two goals of this commentary are to introduce essential methods and approaches to PR and to identify points of connection involving PR and social service organisational studies. Our specific focus on PR in statutory, voluntary and private social service organisations reflects efforts to connect practice, theory and qualitative and quantitative research methods to develop and share organisationally-situated knowledge.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Addictions and Substance Use
• Administration and Management
• Aging and Older Adults
• Biographies
• Children and Adolescents
• Clinical and Direct Practice
• Couples and Families
• Criminal Justice
• Disabilities
• Ethics and Values
• Gender and Sexuality
• Health Care and Illness
• Human Behavior
• International and Global Issues
• Macro Practice
• Mental and Behavioral Health
• Policy and Advocacy
• Populations and Practice Settings
• Race, Ethnicity, and Culture
• Religion and Spirituality
• Research and Evidence-Based Practice
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Work Profession
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Evidence-informed social work practice.

• S. J. Dodd S. J. Dodd Silberman School of Social Work, Hunter College, City University of New York
•  and  Andrea Savage Andrea Savage Silberman School of Social Work, Hunter College, City University of New York
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.915
• Published online: 09 May 2016

Evidence-informed practice (EIP) is a model that incorporates best available research evidence; client’s needs, values, and preferences; practitioner wisdom; and theory into the clinical decision-making process filtered through the lens of client, agency, and community culture. The purpose of this article is to define and describe the evidence-informed practice model within social work and to explore the evolution of evidence-informed practice over time. The article distinguishes evidence-informed practice from the more commonly known (and perhaps more popular) evidence-based practice. And, having outlined the essential components of evidence-informed practice, describes the barriers to its effective implementation. Critical contextual factors related to the implementation of evidence-informed practice at the individual level, as well as within social work organizations, are also addressed. Finally, implications both for social work practice and education are explored.

• evidence-informed practice
• evidence-based practice
• practitioner wisdom

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Encyclopedia of Social Work. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 24 July 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

• Letters of Recommendation
• Competency 1: Professionalism
• Competency 2: Diversity
• Competency 3: Human Rights
• Competency 4: Research
• Competency 5: Policy Practice
• Competency 6: Engagement
• Competency 7: Assessment
• Service Activities
• Certificates and Training
• Competency 8: Intervention
• Competency 9: Evaluation
• Career and Self Care Plans Page
• Certificates and Trainings Page
• Competency 1: Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior
• Competency 2: Engage Diversity and Difference in Practice
• Competency 3: Advance Human Rights and Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice

Competency 4: Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice

• Competency 5: Engage in Policy Practice
• Competency 6: Engage with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities
• Competency 8: Intervene with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities
• Competency 9: Evaluate Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities
• Special Project
• Competency 7: Assess with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

As a social worker, part of my role is to produce research-informed practice. As a result of this role, I seek to observe the standards of researchers and use reliable sources of information to help the population I serve. I will engage in quantitative and qualitative research methods when necessary and seek to understand the true issues that the individuals, groups, or systems that I work within or with are facing. I have demonstrated the following practice behavior through academic  and practicum.

For competency 4 social workers have to engage in practice-informed research and research informed practice. The knowledge used throughout the competency includes searching for peer-reviewed articles related to interventions being implemented in the social emotional learning groups. The value presented throughout the competency is competence in order to develop and enhance professional expertise.

During the field practicum , while engaging in the Permission to Feel Book Club Dr. Brackett references authored scholarly articles reference in his work that was conducted over the course of the development of the RULER model. I used critical thinking and problem solving to apply how emotional regulation can be implemented as I created the 8-week curriculum for Goal Academy (4.1).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEOOkbx9Pg

For my coursework , our team created a literature review which includes an evidence-based approach that has shown success in the treatment of people who are homeless namely called the Housing First Model  (4.1).

During the field practicum I conducted research by receiving feedback from students on how to improve social emotional learning psycho educational groups via pre and post test survey (4.2). The affective process demonstrated in this practice behavior is valuing the input from clients. Using the cognitive model, I gathered students input to better understand the activities presented in group therapy from the participates perspective. Theoretically, the cognitive model theory asserts that people’s perceptions of situations influence their emotional and behavioral reactions. Distorted beliefs influence their processing of information and give rise to distorted thoughts. Thus, in receiving feedback from students on how to improve social emotional learning psycho educational groups via pre and post survey: it ensures that I am being effective in teaching anger management skills to clients. During the coursework , our team created an interview guide and survey related to the Housing Insecurity and Mental Illness in Hamilton County research paper (4.2).

• Search for:

The link between social work research and practice

When thinking about social work, some may consider the field to solely focus on clinical interventions with individuals or groups.

There may be a mistaken impression that research is not a part of the social work profession. This is completely false. Rather, the two have been and will continue to need to be intertwined.

This guide covers why social workers should care about research, how both social work practice and social work research influence and guide each other, how to build research skills both as a student and as a professional working in the field, and the benefits of being a social worker with strong research skills. 

A selection of social work research jobs are also discussed.  

• Social workers and research
• Evidence-based practice
• Practice and research
• Research and practice
• Build research skills
• Social worker as researcher
• Benefits of research skills
• Research jobs

Why should social workers care about research?

Sometimes it may seem as though social work practice and social work research are two separate tracks running parallel to each other – they both seek to improve the lives of clients, families and communities, but they don’t interact. This is not the way it is supposed to work.

Research and practice should be intertwined, with each affecting the other and improving processes on both ends, so that it leads to better outcomes for the population we’re serving.

Section 5 of the NASW Social Work Code of Ethics is focused on social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the social work profession. There are two areas in which research is mentioned in upholding our ethical obligations: for the integrity of the profession (section 5.01) and for evaluation and research (section 5.02). 

Some of the specific guidance provided around research and social work include:

• 5.01(b): …Social workers should protect, enhance, and improve the integrity of the profession through appropriate study and research, active discussion, and responsible criticism of the profession.
• 5.01(d): Social workers should contribute to the knowledge base of social work and share with colleagues their knowledge related to practice, research, and ethics…
• 5.02(a) Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies, the implementation of programs, and practice interventions.
• 5.02(b) Social workers should promote and facilitate evaluation and research to contribute to the development of knowledge.
• 5.02(c) Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work and fully use evaluation and research evidence in their professional practice.
• 5.02(q) Social workers should educate themselves, their students, and their colleagues about responsible research practices.

Evidence-based practice and evidence-based treatment

In order to strengthen the profession and determine that the interventions we are providing are, in fact, effective, we must conduct research. When research and practice are intertwined, this leads practitioners to develop evidence-based practice (EBP) and evidence-based treatment (EBT).

Evidence-based practice is, according to The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) , a process involving creating an answerable question based on a client or organizational need, locating the best available evidence to answer the question, evaluating the quality of the evidence as well as its applicability, applying the evidence, and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the solution. 

Evidence-based treatment is any practice that has been established as effective through scientific research according to a set of explicit criteria (Drake et al., 2001). These are interventions that, when applied consistently, routinely produce improved client outcomes. 

For example, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was one of a variety of interventions for those with anxiety disorders. Researchers wondered if CBT was better than other intervention options in producing positive, consistent results for clients.

So research was conducted comparing multiple types of interventions, and the evidence (research results) demonstrated that CBT was the best intervention.

The anecdotal evidence from practice combined with research evidence determined that CBT should become the standard treatment for those diagnosed with anxiety. Now more social workers are getting trained in CBT methods in order to offer this as a treatment option to their clients.

How does social work practice affect research?

Social work practice provides the context and content for research. For example, agency staff was concerned about the lack of nutritional food in their service area, and heard from clients that it was too hard to get to a grocery store with a variety of foods, because they didn’t have transportation, or public transit took too long. 

So the agency applied for and received a grant to start a farmer’s market in their community, an urban area that was considered a food desert. This program accepted their state’s version of food stamps as a payment option for the items sold at the farmer’s market.

The agency used their passenger van to provide free transportation to and from the farmer’s market for those living more than four blocks from the market location.

The local university also had a booth each week at the market with nursing and medical students checking blood pressure and providing referrals to community agencies that could assist with medical needs. The agency was excited to improve the health of its clients by offering this program.

But how does the granting foundation know if this was a good use of their money? This is where research and evaluation comes in. Research could gather data to answer a number of questions. Here is but a small sample:

• How many community members visited each week and purchased fruits and vegetables? 
• How many took advantage of the transportation provided, and how many walked to the market? 
• How many took advantage of the blood pressure checks? Were improvements seen in those numbers for those having repeat blood pressure readings throughout the market season? 
• How much did the self-reported fruit and vegetable intake increase for customers? 
• What barriers did community members report in visiting and buying food from the market (prices too high? Inconvenient hours?)
• Do community members want the program to continue next year?
• Was the program cost-effective, or did it waste money by paying for a driver and for gasoline to offer free transportation that wasn’t utilized? What are areas where money could be saved without compromising the quality of the program?
• What else needs to be included in this program to help improve the health of community members?

How does research affect social work practice?

Research can guide practice to implement proven strategies. It can also ask the ‘what if’ or ‘how about’ questions that can open doors for new, innovative interventions to be developed (and then research the effectiveness of those interventions).

Engel and Schutt (2017) describe four categories of research used in social work:

• Descriptive research is research in which social phenomena are defined and described. A descriptive research question would be ‘How many homeless women with substance use disorder live in the metro area?’
• Exploratory research seeks to find out how people get along in the setting under question, what meanings they give to their actions, and what issues concern them. An example research question would be ‘What are the barriers to homeless women with substance use disorder receiving treatment services?’
• Explanatory research seeks to identify causes and effects of social phenomena. It can be used to rule out other explanations for findings and show how two events are related to each other.  An explanatory research question would be ‘Why do women with substance use disorder become homeless?’
• Evaluation research describes or identifies the impact of social programs and policies. This type of research question could be ‘How effective was XYZ treatment-first program that combined housing and required drug/alcohol abstinence in keeping women with substance use disorder in stable housing 2 years after the program ended?’

Each of the above types of research can answer important questions about the population, setting or intervention being provided. This can help practitioners determine which option is most effective or cost-efficient or that clients are most likely to adhere to. In turn, this data allows social workers to make informed choices on what to keep in their practice, and what needs changing. 

How to build research skills while in school

There are a number of ways to build research skills while a student.  BSW and MSW programs require a research course, but there are other ways to develop these skills beyond a single class:

• Volunteer to help a professor working in an area of interest. Professors are often excited to share their knowledge and receive extra assistance from students with similar interests.
• Participate in student research projects where you’re the subject. These are most often found in psychology departments. You can learn a lot about the informed consent process and how data is collected by volunteering as a research participant.  Many of these studies also pay a small amount, so it’s an easy way to earn a bit of extra money while you’re on campus. 
• Create an independent study research project as an elective and work with a professor who is an expert in an area you’re interested in.  You’d design a research study, collect the data, analyze it, and write a report or possibly even an article you can submit to an academic journal.
• Some practicum programs will have you complete a small evaluation project or assist with a larger research project as part of your field education hours. 
• In MSW programs, some professors hire students to conduct interviews or enter data on their funded research projects. This could be a good part time job while in school.
• Research assistant positions are more common in MSW programs, and these pay for some or all your tuition in exchange for working a set number of hours per week on a funded research project.

How to build research skills while working as a social worker

Social service agencies are often understaffed, with more projects to complete than there are people to complete them.

Taking the initiative to volunteer to survey clients about what they want and need, conduct an evaluation on a program, or seeing if there is data that has been previously collected but not analyzed and review that data and write up a report can help you stand out from your peers, be appreciated by management and other staff, and may even lead to a raise, a promotion, or even new job opportunities because of the skills you’ve developed.

Benefits of being a social worker with strong research skills

Social workers with strong research skills can have the opportunity to work on various projects, and at higher levels of responsibility. 

Many can be promoted into administration level positions after demonstrating they understand how to conduct, interpret and report research findings and apply those findings to improving the agency and their programs.

There’s also a level of confidence knowing you’re implementing proven strategies with your clients. 

Social work research jobs

There are a number of ways in which you can blend interests in social work and research. A quick search on Glassdoor.com and Indeed.com retrieved the following positions related to social work research:

• Research Coordinator on a clinical trial offering psychosocial supportive interventions and non-addictive pain treatments to minimize opioid use for pain.
• Senior Research Associate leading and overseeing research on a suite of projects offered in housing, mental health and corrections.
• Research Fellow in a school of social work
• Project Policy Analyst for large health organization
• Health Educator/Research Specialist to implement and evaluate cancer prevention and screening programs for a health department
• Research Interventionist providing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for insomnia patients participating in a clinical trial
• Research Associate for Child Care and Early Education
• Social Services Data Researcher for an organization serving adults with disabilities.
• Director of Community Health Equity Research Programs evaluating health disparities.

No matter your population or area of interest, you’d likely be able to find a position that integrated research and social work. 

Social work practice and research are and should remain intertwined. This is the only way we can know what questions to ask about the programs and services we are providing, and ensure our interventions are effective. 

There are many opportunities to develop research skills while in school and while working in the field, and these skills can lead to some interesting positions that can make a real difference to clients, families and communities. 

Drake, R. E., Goldman, H., Leff, H. S., Lehman, A. F., Dixon, L., Mueser, K. T., et al. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric Services, 52(2), 179-182. 

Engel, R.J., & Schutt, R.K. (2017). The Practice of Research in Social Work. Sage.

National Association of Social Workers. (n.d). Evidence Based Practice. Retrieved from: https://www.socialworkers.org/News/Research-Data/Social-Work-Policy-Research/Evidence-Based-Practice

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Best Social Work Degrees & Career Options

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE SOCIAL WORK EXAMPLES IN THE UNITED STATES

Evidence-based practice Social Work is an approach to clinical practice to find solutions to problems and make decisions about patient care.

What is Evidenced Based Practice ?

Why do we write things down? In healthcare, social work, and other professions involving practitioner-client relationships, there are many answers to this question. First, every member of a client’s team must understand the interventions that have already been applied. Second, if the client or patient is discharged to another facility, they can bring their record with them to help their newly expanded team provide more targeted care. We also document treatments to show regulating bodies that the care being provided falls within legal standards.

Improving communication between multiple providers and facilities is important for treatment success, but it’s not the only reason that social workers document their findings. By sharing their experiences in the form of research findings, social scientists can help the entire discipline. This is known as “evidence-based” social work.

What Are the Steps of Evidence-Based Social Work?

Evidence-based practice in social work refers to the use of research-verified methods by a social worker to create or enhance a treatment plan. Just like legal and medical professionals, social workers have access to a growing knowledge base of research findings that they can draw from to enhance their treatments. Simply having access to research databases, however, doesn’t guarantee effectiveness – an important process must come first. So, what are the steps of evidence-based social work? Here is a simplified breakdown of the steps.

1. Identify the problem

It may sound like “common sense,” but experienced social workers will understand the importance of digging beneath the surface to identify the root cause of problem behavior. Treating a client with an evidence-based protocol for alcohol abuse, for example, won’t necessarily help if the abuse is a side-effect of anxiety, a self-esteem issue, or another cause that should be directly addressed.

2. Access the evidence

Once a social worker has identified the cause of the problem behavior, they need to find the appropriate evidence. It may seem easy at first, but accessing research databases is a much more involved process than the search engines most of us are used to. Research is a discipline on its own, and social workers need to understand how to structure their queries, find and review summaries, and weigh the effectiveness of similar studies against each other.

3. Compare the context

This is arguably the most important step in the evidence-based social work domain because it can make or break the intervention’s effectiveness. The concept is simple: compare your client’s situation to that of the research participants in the study you’re using and adjust accordingly.

If research participants were found to respond positively to a certain intervention, for example, but they were given the intervention multiple times a day in an inpatient facility, that can affect results for your outpatient client. The circumstances don’t have to match perfectly, but the social worker must be conscious of each circumstantial difference and adjust them to model the study whenever appropriate.

4. Apply the intervention

Finally, when the evidence has been pored over and analyzed, and the social worker has adapted the evidence-based strategy to fit their client’s particular context, it’s time to apply the intervention. Social workers using evidence-based practice (EBP) should consider themselves as researchers expanding the original finding.

The more thoroughly they report their results, the more insight they can add to the knowledge base. Furthermore, keeping a clear record of the results will help that social worker to create their own evidence-based resource pool. (Note: review boards and publishers require certain standards to be met in order for records to be considered EBP.)

Pros and Cons of Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work

Now that we’ve reviewed why it is important to use evidence-based social work and how it’s important to note that EBP isn’t the best answer for every situation. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages, but only when the circumstances are appropriate. To better define those circumstances, we’ve made a list of the pros and cons of evidence-based practice in social work.

• EBP gives social workers new tools and techniques to use
• Using EBP models increases likelihood of receiving grants in many cases
• Evidence-based practice models are often easier to implement because of all of the supporting material
• Research can help social workers choose between multiple interventions
• Documenting use of evidence-based social work helps to advance effective treatment options
• Research findings can be flawed
• Multiple studies on the same issue may disagree
• Your situation may not be represented in the research
• You may not have access to the equipment/methods from the finding(s)
• Interventions applied in the study may conflict with ethical guidelines governing your practice/region.

What is an Example of Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work ?

Considering the list of pros and cons of evidence-based practice in social work, the best way to utilize EBP is to make sure the research is verified by other studies. It’s also important to ensure the study represents your situation and that it can be reproduced while adhering to ethical standards. When a social worker takes these considerations, the pros will outweigh the cons.

As social workers know all too well, even a sound theory doesn’t always guarantee success in the real world. To that end, we’ve listed the following examples of evidence-based practice in social work to give you some real-life context.

Substance Abuse : The Washington.edu library has an EBP database centered on substance abuse protocols. Licensed Clinical Social Workers , addiction counselors, psychotherapists and other professionals working with clients who struggle with substance abuse can access this resource to structure their treatments.

Violent Behaviors : The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) at the University of Colorado Boulder maintains a growing collection of objective studies that provide intervention programs for violent offenders. The program has focused on identifying what they call the “blueprint for violence,” and in doing so, their advisory-board-recommended programs have helped many clients to find healthier means of conflict resolution. To date, the CSPV has reviewed more than 600 violence prevention programs.

Child Welfare : The controversial topic of child welfare is defined by tough questions and ethical dilemmas. Social workers in this specialty have to make decisions that can determine the course of a child’s future, so they need objectively proven methods as much as anyone. More than just welfare programs, the Child Welfare Information Gateway provides a wealth of resources that give important insights in the areas of child abuse, adoption, welfare, and other scenarios.

EBP Databases

As EBP databases continue to grow, more social workers in both the private and public sectors are expected to implement or at least refer to evidence-based protocols in order to improve outcomes with their clients. When used properly, examples of evidence-based practice in social work have been found to produce reliable results.

Why is Evidence-Based Practice important in social work practice?

In evidence-based social work, the most advanced evidence to inform practice is used. This is integrated into the practitioner’s clinical expertise and combined with the patient’s values and preferences. When social workers work within the scientific framework, they are better informed to determine what will work best for their clients in different situations.

Evidence-based social work is important within social work practice because it offers a variety of important advantages to the social worker and helps them in their research. It is a practice model that pushes social workers to question their assumptions and to seek out new information. For example, kids who have been pulled from homes in the past are normally placed in the foster care system.

This was part of social work practice when it came to the removal of children. Due to recent studies, there is no evidence that kids do better when they are placed in relative homes versus foster care homes. Social workers have changed their practice when it comes to removing children from their homes to correlate with this evidence. This sets the children up to be more successful and comfortable while their parent or parents seek the help and guidance they need so the child can go home eventually.

In the past, social workers have relied upon authoritative opinions, commonsense reasoning, and the status quo when it comes to what is best for their clients. This is shown in the example of placing children in foster care. It is now known that it is better for kids to be placed with a relative whenever it is possible.

The evidence-based practice assists social workers in delivering the type of treatment and services that will help the client achieve their goals and have their needs met. It also helps social workers to implement successful programs in various areas of social work to help their different clients succeed. 

How do evidence-based practices help clients?

Evidence-based social work combines the social worker’s clinical experience and expertise with each patient’s preferences and value system. By working within the scientific framework of evidence-based social work, social workers are able to determine what works best for each of their clients.

For example, when a child is removed from their home due to abuse or neglect, they are normally placed in foster care. The foster care system in the United States is not always the best solution for the child, especially in areas of the country that do not have very many qualified foster parents. Social workers search for an appropriate family member of the child to take the child into their home. Evidence has shown that this is better for the child since he or she is familiar with their relative. This means children are more comfortable and more successful when placed in relative’s homes versus foster homes.

Evidence-based social work is helpful to clients since they can receive care or solutions to their problems that have already been proven to be successful. Another example would be if a person is suffering from a mental health disorder and is connected with the appropriate treatment.

This allows the person to get better without having to attempt to secure the proper treatment on their own. Evidence has also shown that people do well in community-based treatment. This is beneficial to the person since they have an automatic support system from the people within their care community.

Another example is when a client is addicted to drugs and sent to jail over and over again. Evidence-based social work dictates that clients are more likely to head into recovery if they undergo treatment for at least one year in a drug treatment facility. Evidence shows that it takes one year, at least, for the brain to heal from a drug like heroin. This lengthy treatment can assist the client in becoming clean and sober.

What is an evidence-based social worker salary?

According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage for social workers as of May of 2021 was $50,390. The overall employment when it comes to social work is projected to grow nine percent from the year 2021 through 2031 which is faster than the average for all other occupations.

There are around 75,000 job openings for social workers projected each year, on average, over the next 10 years. Many of these job openings will occur due to older social workers retiring. Evidence-based social workers can fall under any of the levels of education when it comes to social work. Social workers with master’s degrees tend to earn about $240 more per week than those who only hold a bachelor’s degree. This means that social workers with a doctorate degree or Ph.D. will earn even more income annually.

• How do Social Workers Use Task-Centered Practice?
• What is School Social Work?
• How Social Workers Can Practice Self-Care
• Ten Books Social Workers Should Read

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Current State of Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work: A Review of the Literature and Qualitative Analysis of Expert Interviews

While there is recent movement toward Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in social work, criticisms subsist regarding the profession’s translation of research into viable practices. Evidence describing effective interventions exists, but research that addresses dissemination and implementation is generally lacking. This paper highlights existing literature on dissemination and explores the barriers, themes, and trends in EBP through eight expert interviews. The interviews reflect the issues described in the literature and provide additional insight to the process of implementation and dissemination of EBP. Findings from the literature and interviews are synthesized into research and practice recommendations.

While there is a call for Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in social work and mental health services, there have also been a number of criticisms about the implementation of research findings into viable methods of practice. These barriers range from the egregious lag-time between research development to dissemination of evidence to practice settings to a veritable lack of support and training for community practitioners. There is a growing body of evidence describing effective interventions, but there is not a substantial body of work addressing the dissemination of these programs and other research findings for use in the field. This paper highlights some of the work around dissemination of EBPs in the field of social work with an emphasis on mental health services including an overview of the barriers to the use of evidence in practice and proposed models of conceptualization and implementation of EBP. To further highlight the current barriers, themes, and trends in EBP eight experts in the field of EBP were interviewed. The goal of the interviews was to survey the opinions of expert researchers in the area of EBP to supplement knowledge described in the literature. The experts’ responses reflected many of the same issues described in the literature as well as additional information regarding their efforts toward determining the most viable options to address the barriers to implementing and disseminating EBP. Findings from the literature review and interviews are synthesized into recommendations for future research and practice efforts.

INTRODUCTION

Practice decisions based on research evidence have increasingly become an identified need in the treatment of mental illnesses. Three of the most influential reports on mental health services policy in recent years, The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health Report (2003) , The World Health Organization Report on Mental Health (2001) , and Mental Health: A report of the Surgeon General (1999), emphasize the need for research and evidence-based practices (EBPs) in mental health services. Even more broad health policy reports, such as Healthy People 2010 (2000) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), point to “an emphasis on translating new knowledge into clinical applications” in the mental health arena. The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003) recently released a final report calling for evidence based and recovery focused interventions in the treatment of mental illness; and the National Institute of Mental Health echoes this approach (Insel, 2003). Goal five of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health Report (2003) stresses the need to deliver excellent mental health care by accelerating research to promote recovery, resilience, prevention, and a cure for mental illness, advancing evidence-based practice dissemination and demonstration, expanding the workforce providing evidence-based practices, and developing a knowledge base in mental health disparities, long term medication effects, trauma, and acute care.

These national and international health and mental health reports are important to social work, not only as signposts of current trends in policy thought, but also as frameworks for future policy and funding activity. Federal agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) are beginning to link grants and contracts to EBP themes such as research-based interventions and the translation of research into practice as well as hosting conferences dedicated to EBP. These and other agencies are also outlining science-based program standards and rating systems. For example, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and SAMHSA recently constructed a comparison matrix of science based prevention programs examining the standards and effectiveness ratings of 150 different programs sponsored by five different federal agencies (2002).

According to Thomas Insel (2004) , director of the National Institute of Mental Health, social workers are doing the majority of front line work treating individuals with mental illnesses. Citing a 1998 SAMHSA report, the current psychotherapy workforce is dominated by social work consisting of 192,814 social workers, 73,014 psychologists, 33,486 psychiatrists, and 17,318 psychiatric nurses ( Insel, 2004 ). Despite social worker dominance in the field of mental health and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) code of ethics emphasis on research based service, the majority of social workers do not appear to draw on research findings to inform their practice ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ; Kirk & Rosenblatt, 1981 ; Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ; NASW, 1996 ; Rosen, 1994 ). Social workers, including researchers, educators, agency administrators, and practitioners, are therefore challenged with an important question: “How can the profession better disseminate the rich and growing body of research and evidence based interventions in social work and mental health services to practitioners providing direct services to individuals with mental illnesses?” This paper contains a review of the current literature around the dissemination of EBP, current social work models for dissemination of EBP, interviews with experts in the field, and a synthesis of this combined knowledge into recommendations for future dissemination of research and EBP efforts.

LITERATURE SEARCH METHOD

For this project, research was conducted through a review of the literature, including both books and scholarly articles, on EBP in mental health services in social work as well as other relevant professions and by interviewing a convenience sample of experts currently conducting research related to the development and dissemination of evidence based interventions for mental illnesses. Relevant literature was identified through a search of local social work and public health library holdings and by searching electronically using the following databases: Social Work Abstracts, PsychLit, and Medline. Additional citations were collected via the reference lists of identified sources and through the draft reference list of EBP dissemination literature collected by the Research Unit for Research Utilization (RURU), a part of the Evidence Network of Great Britain ( RURU, 2003 ). This review was limited to published literature that directly describes the use of research in social work practice specifically.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The call for evidence-based practice.

The first widespread push for EBP in social work came out of a series of studies that began to appear in the 1970s and called into question the effectiveness of existing social work interventions ( Fisher, 1973 ; Reid, 1994 ). The 1970s and 1980s witnessed a movement to develop evidence based models of practice in mental health and further the development of well researched psychosocial intervention models such as the behavioral, cognitive, interpersonal, and social approaches, as well as the biological and biopsychosocial theories of mental illness ( Turnbull, 1991 ). Evidence-based researchers in many disciplines pioneered models used in social work practice including: psychology, psychiatry, and social work. In the late 1980s and early 1990s substantial evidence regarding the treatment of common mental health disorders were high-lighted by the publication of the results of studies such as the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program ( Elkin, Shea, Watkins et al., 1989 ). Over the past decade, the proportion and number of articles referring to EBP published in professional journals has risen in the disciplines focused on mental health services, health, and social welfare ( Shlonsky & Gibbs, 2004 ). For a more detailed description of the history of the development and use of EBP in social work see Kirk and Reid (2002) .

Today, New York State’s Office of Mental Health, identified as a progressive program by NIMH (Insel, 2003), is promoting the use of the following EBP for adults with serious mental illnesses. These EBP interventions include: Assertive Community Treatment (ACT), supported employment, intensive case management, wellness self-management, family psychoeducation, integrated treatment for co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders, medication (and guidelines for practitioners to promote optimal prescribing practices), self-help and peer support services, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment ( New York State Office of Mental Health, 2001 ). The President’s New Freedom Commission (2003) report identified the following additional EBPs for the treatment of mental health disorders: cognitive and interpersonal therapies for depression, preventive interventions for children at risk for serious emotional disturbances, treatment foster care, multi-systemic therapy (MST), parent-child interaction therapy, and collaborative treatment in primary care. The commission also recommended emerging best practices including: consumer operated services, jail diversion, and community re-entry programs, school mental health services, trauma-specific intervention, wraparound services, multi-family group therapies, and systems of care for children with serious emotional disturbances and their families ( New Freedom Commission, 2003 ).

Translation and Implementation

The wider field of social science knowledge utilization is just beginning to build a theoretical framework that explains why research evidence, such as the EBPs listed above, is or is not utilized in social work practice ( Landry, Amara, & Lamari, 2001 ). While researchers have identified evidence-based mental health services, the translation and implementation of these services into practice has been problematic. One of the greatest complaints has been the lag of nearly 15 to 20 years between the identification and incorporation of EBP interventions into routine care ( Balas & Boren, 2000 ). Moreover, social work is a profession that claims expertise and specialized knowledge, values, skills, and professional ethics aimed at addressing difficult human problems, including mental illness ( Gambrill, 1999 ); however, licenses, experiences, and training are not supported by evidence as necessarily related to helping clients through the use of evidence ( Dawes, 1994 ).

Gambrill (1999) describes two different strategies for addressing the problem that social work is a profession based on “claimed rather than demonstrated effectiveness” in assisting clients in obtaining targeted outcomes. The first strategy, and arguably the most common historically, has been to ignore the contradiction between claims and reality and to censure this information from the academic and practice community ( Gambrill, 1999 ). The second strategy is to investigate the values, skills, and knowledge needed to achieve certain outcomes and then to identify who has these resources and the capability to provide them ( Gambrill, 1999 ). Social workers can, in this way, become integral participants in the process of shaping and delivering supported and needed interventions for clients and communities.

Perhaps the most common subject described in the EBP literature has been the concrete and psychological barriers that impede dissemination and implementation of EBPs. These barriers, outlined by practitioners, researchers, and administrators alike, have generally revolved around four major themes: knowledge, lack of fit, suspicion, and resources.

Knowledge barriers are those that speak to the general lack of awareness of available EBPs and the difficulty in processing or understanding research findings when they are identified ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ). This Includes practitioners’ lack of knowledge about how to best access, critically evaluate, and translate evidence for appropriate use with their clients. Gray, one of the foremost thinkers in evidence based healthcare and policy, likens research-based facts to uncut diamonds, which are valuable but of little use in their raw form (1997). Few practitioners access traditional outlets for research findings, such as scholarly journals ( Kirk & Reid, 2002 ) and the information found in these journals is not easily digested or translated into practice ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Bartels, Haley, & Dums, 1998). Even when evidence is identified in journals, much journal evidence is three-to four-years-old by the time it is published ( Thyer, 2004 ). The lack of knowledge also includes arguments that are based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes an EBP. For example, some have argued that social work is already using and teaching EBP, that effectiveness is a matter of personal opinion, or that no clear evidence is available for the questions social workers pose ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ).

Even if practitioners are able to identify and understand research they may still discredit its value. The lack of fit theme includes the reasons why practitioners feel that available evidence or research is not often helpful. Some feel that the EBPs are cookbook approaches that are too broad and do not speak to the unique contextual or cultural needs of clients (Bartels, Haley, & Dums, 1998; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ; Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ). Others have noted that the methodology of treatment may not be applicable within the confines of their practice. For example, many EBPs emphasize short-term treatment, but this format is not appropriate to all clients across diverse settings ( Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ). Moreover, practitioners have noted that research and current policy are often at odds. Research findings are slow to develop, and once findings are presented, it may take considerable time before policies are aligned with new knowledge. As a result, policy and agency requirements and technology frequently do not support current evidence ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ). Finally, the culture of knowledge transmission within social work has been historically unsupportive of the use of research evidence in practice ( Barratt, 2003 ).

Related to the idea of the lack of fit between research findings and practice is the theme of suspicion . This includes a basic distrust for evidence, based on objections related to political, ethical, or control issues. Gibbs sites a natural resistance to innovation (including EBPs) as one of the main barriers of teaching EBP to practitioners ( Gibbs, 2003 ). Some practitioners feel that research evidence is simply a cost-cutting tool, politically motivated, guided by efficiency, or otherwise influenced by something other than the client’s best interest ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ). Other practitioners feel the experts are more often guided by their own view or model rather than an objective examination of the evidence ( Barratt, 2003 ). Landry, Amara, and Lamari (2001) point oat that there is an inherent disconnect between the goals and needs of researchers and practitioners. Practitioners need and want guidance that is tailored to clients and practice. However, the degree to which research results are customized to only one or two users increase costs to the scholars. Their work becomes less generalizable to the wider world and they must reformat or repackage it if they want others to utilize their work. It becomes a catch-22 where researchers are pushed toward developing broad applications and their work becomes likewise less useful for the individual practitioner. Moreover, as Barnes and Clouder (2000) point out, the determination of what is disseminated is largely dependent upon the researcher’s judgment of what is significant or worth sharing. Others believe that EBPs exclude the practitioner’s professional judgment, clinical expertise, or the judgment, values and preferences of the client ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ; Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ). An argument has also been made that those who advocate EBP want only to set trends, be first, be controversial, or further their reputations and that evidence can be found to support any favored point of view or that all methods are equally valuable in arriving at the truth ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ). The idea that research is suspect seems also, in part, due to the generally poor relationship that researchers and scholars have had with community agencies and practitioners in the past. Administrators have described a lack of communication and a disjoint between the goals of the agency and that of researchers ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Barratt, 2003 ). Furthermore, practitioners’ may collaborate in creating or testing interventions with researchers, but their participation in building and sharing knowledge with the wider profession has generally been limited ( Kirk & Reid, 2002 ). The chasm between research and practice is further widened by practitioners’ inability to contribute to the formal body of social work knowledge that they are expected to employ. “Thus, knowledge production and dissemination is largely in the hands of a small number of academics, while expectations for use have often been placed on the vast number of practitioners” (p. 205, Kirk & Reid, 2002 ).

Even practitioners and agencies that understand, appreciate, and want to use research evidence in their work may find themselves incapable due to a lack of resources ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Barrett, 2003; Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ) and reluctance to ask more of an overextended staff ( Barratt, 2003 ). Without the necessary training, materials, time and staff dedication to researching the evidence, EBPs cannot often be employed. Interventions may be shaped instead by limitations rather than knowledge. A lack of technology is particularly troublesome in a day and age where most cutting-edge information is accessed through computers and the Internet. Many agencies do not have access to these resources. The issue is not only what resources are realistically available, but also beliefs or policies about who can have access to these resources. Some administrators feel that not all social workers should have access to computers and the Internet ( Barratt, 2003 ). The issue of a lack of resources is partly a result of generally poor or inconsistent funding for many social work agencies. However, funds that are available are rarely routed toward identifying, instituting and maintaining research, technology, or EBPs.

Growing Body of Evidence-Based Services and Programs and Arguments for Use

Despite the numerous barriers to dissemination outlined above, social workers in the mental health services arena do have a number of compelling reasons to implement evidence into their practice with mentally ill individuals. Practitioners have cited advantages of using EBPs such as: (1) conceptualizing, planning, and guiding treatment, (2) increasing knowledge and skills, (3) improving treatment outcomes for clients, (4) integrating and supplementing, not supplanting, clinical judgment and knowledge, (5) complying with current practice, values, and professional consensus, and (6) satisfying grant or managed care reimbursement requirements ( Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ). Overall, the basic tenet of EBPs is that clients should receive the benefit of the best technology that social work has to offer.

It is, however, difficult to imagine the basis on which structured, fact-based and well-informed decision making and planning referenced to the best available published research can be viewed as counter either to the provision of effective outcomes for service users, or to the ethos of the social work professional, (p. 144, Barratt, 2003 )

There are many questions as to what exactly should be used as evidence to identify the best technology possible. Undoubtedly this argument will, and should, continue within the field. However, if some agreement upon what is a validated intervention can be secured, the question becomes one of dissemination and implementation.

Current Strategies for Dissemination and Implementation

Until recently the prevailing approach to dissemination has been to report evidence in journal articles and published or unpublished practice manuals or to provide limited didactic trainings (Gibbs & Gambrill, 2003). Additionally, in recent years some masters programs have offered limited numbers of courses on some EBPs, such as cognitive behavioral therapy ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ). However, evidence suggests that these strategies have been largely unsuccessful in social work, as well as in the other professions treating individuals with mental health needs, as few mental health professionals are basing practice decisions on research evidence ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ; Kirk & Reid, 2002 ; Kirk & Rosenblatt, 1981 ; Mullen & Bacon, 2004 ; NASW, 1996 ; Rosen, 1994 ). To facilitate implementation of EBPs in the community, “… it is increasingly recognized that simply improving the content and availability of the evidence base is not sufficient to secure such changes. Explicit and active strategies are required to ensure that research really does have an impact on policy and practice” (p. 2, Walter, Nutley, & Davies, 2003 ). In order to flourish, efforts to implement evidence-based practices must be “multifaceted, broad-based and carefully targeted” (p. 144, Barratt, 2003 ).

Many researchers, program developers, and others have employed a cornucopia of what Walter, Nutley, and Davies (2003) term “mechanisms” to disseminate research findings. These authors reviewed over one hundred papers that evaluated or described efforts to facilitate the use of research. Nearly two hundred individual practices or packages were identified through this review. Based on these, the authors developed a taxonomy of approaches by both intervention type (format through which the information flows) and mechanisms employed, as well as a brief description of the research or theory that lends support to the specific approach. For example, one category of mechanisms described by the authors is incentives. The adoption of desired behaviors or information is encouraged through reward, or perhaps linking funding to specific practices. This mechanism is supported by learning theories, economic models of rational behavior, and power theory. Using such taxonomy to organize and understand dissemination research could potentially prove useful.

A number of researchers have taken the process a step further than individual mechanisms or approaches and proposed more developed frameworks for the delivery of research evidence into practice. While no single best method has been identified, there are a number of emerging social work implementation strategies described in the literature. The following is a brief overview of this work.

Anderson and colleagues

Based on interviews with community organization leaders, Anderson and colleagues suggest a model based on a relationship between researchers and community organizations that moves through three different stages. In the first stage, awareness , both researchers and community organizations are educated about the needs of one another ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ). In many cases both researchers and community-based organizations have little contact and are generally ignorant of the other’s work. In the second stage, communication , mechanisms are built to facilitate the transfer of information. Both community organizations and research stakeholders come together to formulate a plan for sharing skills and knowledge. A variety of methods may be employed such as: workshops, databases, and open houses. Finally, in the last stage, interaction , mutual activities toward common goals are shared and negotiated. In this model, a relationship is built to facilitate communication and knowledge transfer between community organizations and researchers allowing each to inform the other’s work. This model is general, offers some specific recommendations, but seems to focus largely on encouraging local groups to work together in order to find the methods that match their shared needs, abilities, and resources.

Gambrill and Gibbs

Leonard Gibbs and Eileen Gambrill propose a model defining EBP as the ‘conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence to make decisions about the care of clients’ ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ). The aim of their model is to create lifelong learners who, in collaboration with clients, draw on practice related research findings to make practice related decisions ( Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ). In this model, EBP is a process that results from the careful consideration of practitioner’s individual experience, best available evidence, and client values and expectations ( Shlonsky & Gibbs, 2004 ). EBP is characterized by: (1) becoming motivated to apply evidence to practice decision making, (2) an individual assessment and well formulated question, (3) an external electronic search for practice findings related to practice questions, (4) decision-making regarding the evidence’s fit with the individual client, (5) using individual expertise to integrate the best external practice evidence, (6) evaluating the outcome (7) and sharing what is learned with others ( Gibbs, 2003 ; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ). These authors propose a method of dissemination heavily focused on the education of practitioners in this model of EBP at the master’s level ( Gibbs, 2003 ; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002 ).

Outside of the implementation of EBP as core curricula in master’s level social work programs and continuing education, Gibbs and Gambrill offer little advice on implementation suggesting that practitioner’s ‘obey your own conscience and implement EBP into your own practice however you feel it most appropriate to do so’ ( Gibbs, 2003 ). The following suggestions are offered, (1) consider the quality and applicability of evidence, (2) consider the context or organizational environment, and (3) consider the process of implementing change ( Gibbs, 2003 ). However, a clear design for implementation, outside of teaching, master’s level education, and continuing education, is not offered.

Rosen and Proctor

Aaron Rosen and Enola Proctor have devised an implementation strategy that relieves the practitioner of the burden of formulating and identifying the relevant research, locating, and assembling the information, critically evaluating the relevancy and validity of the evidence with regard to their practice decisions with an individual client, and adapting that knowledge to the client’s particular needs and situation ( Rosen, Proctor, Morrow-Howell, Auslander, & Staudt, 1993 ). The strategy proposed involves the use of Systematic Planned Practice (SPP), a tool for treatment planning and evaluation that includes the planning and recording of critical elements of practice such as the presenting problem(s), desired outcomes, interventions, and observed results ( Rosen et al., 1993 ). Application is guided by forms that serve two functions: to prompt and guide the worker in laying out the treatment plan and as a rationale for decisions made and to provide documentation for treatment planning decisions, what is actually implemented, and the outcomes obtained ( Rosen et al., 1993 ). A dissemination plan is proposed that combines SPP with components of practice guidelines to facilitate practitioner use and knowledge of evidence in practice (Rosen, 2002). According to Proctor, the adoption of EBP consists of multiple distinct outcomes whose attainment requires “systematic, targeted efforts by many players, at multiple levels of influence” ( Proctor, in press ). These include the following provider outcomes necessary for evidence based practice; identifying and accessing EBPs, accepting and adopting EBPs, implementing EBPs and evaluating EBPs (Proctor, 2004). As in the Gambrill and Gibbs model, Rosen and Proctor place much of the burden of utilization on the practitioner to locate and implement research knowledge. While Anderson and colleagues frame the process as more of a partnership between researchers and practitioners, it lacks specificity in terms of implementation.

Tool Kit Method

Another approach to the dissemination of EBPs is the tool kit method. Tool kits are materials constructed from original research and translated for use by practitioners, agencies, or institutions. In this model, specific tools rather than a framework or mandate are provided to support social workers’ efforts toward using EBPs. Resources, such as the Sociometrics Program Archives, have taken up the business of culling through research with the help of expert panels to develop a collection of tools such as: user’s guides, teacher or facilitator manuals, student or participant workbooks, videos or other supplemental media, and homework or exercises ( Card, 2001 ). Practitioners can order such tool kits from for profit and nonprofit enterprises at a cost. The idea is that the necessary research evidence is distilled into an attractive user-friendly format that is ready for implementation in the community. Evaluation processes are also sometimes included to provide a conduit for user feedback and further refinement of the toolkit package ( Card, 2001 ).

Practice Guidelines

Instituting practice guidelines, which have often been employed in using practice theory and wisdom since the beginning of the profession, has been another method recommended for the dissemination of EBPs ( Kirk & Reid, 2002 ). Using this format, treatment is directed by an outline of acceptable practices in specific areas of treatment. These practices would be determined by a professional body-charged with surveying, evaluating, and choosing both prescribed and proscribed interventions. Researchers have made arguments against such guidelines including: (1) the paucity of research needed to support good guidelines, (2) the lack of agreement on what constitutes evidence, (3) too little flexibility for practitioners, (4) little agency support, (5) and the fear of the use of guidelines as de facto standards in litigation against practitioners (Howard & Jensen, 1999). Despite these objections, Howard and Jensen (1999) argue that practice guidelines can go a long way toward improving social work interventions (for an excellent discussion of the potential problems and benefits of practice guidelines in social work please see the May 1999 issue of the journal Research on Social Work Practice ).

Other models

Historically other models have been explored to marry research and practice. Kirk and Reid (2002) describe efforts that grew out of industry and technology beginning in the 1960s and 70s such as the Research Development and Diffusion (RD&R) and Design and Development (D&D) models. These models describe a paradigm by which research and practice can be mutually informative in a constant feedback loop. However, as Kirk and Reid point out, these efforts would be enhanced if they were to be exposed to the same processes that they propose in order to become more flexible and useful across diverse social work contexts.

General recommendations

Beyond the more developed models described above, several researchers have made general recommendations for dissemination of evidence into practice. First, it is essential to secure organizational and practitioner buy-in ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Lewis, 1998 ; Mullen, 2004 ). Before any real progress is made toward dissemination stakeholders must both agree that EBP is valuable and important enough to merit a commitment of time, training, and other resources. Leadership is a crucial ingredient for change in this area ( Barratt, 2003 ). Although the dissemination of EBPs must occur at all levels, important issues such as protecting practitioner time for research and training as well monitoring and following up on implementation activities must be guided by administrators and other persons or agencies with authority. Also, some authors have described the importance of establishing a network of local organizations and practitioners so that they can pool resources such as training and research, become actively involved, and develop broad community goals ( Anderson, Cosby, Swan, Moore, & Broekhoven, 1999 ; Howard & Jensen, 1999). McKay and colleagues stress the importance of training and the establishment of an “engagement team” consisting of intake workers, clinical and administrative staff, and supervisors who oversee the implementation of interventions at each site ( McKay, Hibbert, Hoagwood, Rodriguez, Murray, Legerski, & Fernandez, 2004 ). Agencies and practitioners cannot be realistically expected to “go it alone” on tight budgets, timelines, and a research base that is a moving target. A much more efficient approach seems to be one of networking and sharing with other social workers, community organizations, educational institutions, and other stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the authors found few studies testing the efficacy of these approaches to the dissemination and utilization of research in practice. In essence, the research evidence on the use of EBPs has not been well developed. “Researchers have been relatively oblivious to the processes by which knowledge, once developed, might be effectively disseminated and used” ( Kirk & Reid, 2002 ).

QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS

Based on themes identified in the literature review, the authors conducted qualitative interviews with experts in the field of EBP. The goal of the interviews was to survey expert researchers in order to explore current strategies, struggles, and observations about EBP to supplement and speak to the themes described in the literature.

Interviews with expert researchers experienced in mental health services research and evidence-based clinical interventions were conducted using open ended questions related to the topic of the dissemination and implementation of evidence based practices. Because this research is exploratory in nature, a convenience sample of interview candidates was selected on the basis of reputation and body of work in the field of EBP. In addition, a snowball method of interviewee selection was employed where respondents referred the authors to other experts for further data collection. All participants were researchers trained at the doctoral level. In total eight experts were interviewed including: five social worker professors, one professor of psychiatric epidemiology, one psychiatrist who directs a children’s mental health research program, and one national policy organization researcher.

Human Subjects Protections

Each potential respondent was invited to share thoughts and opinions regarding the use of EBP in mental health services and was provided a copy of the questions before the interview. Interviews were voluntary and the experts were not compensated for participating. Any identifying information regarding the individual interviewees was not included in the analysis and confidential interviews were maintained on password-protected computers in a locked office. Participants were given copies of the data collected in order to edit or make any additions to their responses.

Interview Schedule

The three authors interviewed all of the participants in the participants’ offices. For six of the eight interviews all three authors were present. For two of the interviews, only two authors were present. Each author took detailed notes during the interview highlighting major themes. Participants were provided with the following list of questions prior to the interview:

• What is your experience with Evidence Based Practice (EBP)?
• Have you done research around topics of EBP?
• What do you see as the barriers to implementing EBP in practice settings?
• What means of disseminating EBP have you seen employed?
• What are some of your ideas about how to improve the dissemination of EBP?
• Why do you think more practitioners don’t use EBP?
• What are the results of not using EBP?
• Where do you see gaps in EBP?
• How would you characterize the future of EBP?
• Do you know of any existing models or tools for the implementation of EBP? What are your thoughts about their usefulness?

Transcription

Authors took notes to highlight major themes in the interviews from each respondent. Following the interviews, the authors compiled notes for content analysis. To ensure inter-rater reliability the three interviewers transcribed all interviews separately. Transcription reports were compiled into one report for each participant to generate the most accurate representation of their comments.

Content analysis was conducted for each interview. Krippendorf (1980) defines content analysis as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their context” (p. 21). Janis (1965) defines it as:

Any technique (a) for the classification of the sign-vehicles (words that carry meaning), (b) which relies solely upon the judgment (which theoretically may range from perceptual discrimination to sheer guesses) of an analyst or group of analysts as to which sign-vehicles fall into which categories, (c) provided that the analyst’s judgments are regarded as the report of a scientific observer, (p. 55)

For the purpose of this analysis, semantical content analysis was conducted to classify sign-vehicles according to their meanings. The interviewers reviewed protocols for three types of semantical content analysis; designations analysis , which determines the frequency with which certain objects are mentioned, attribution analysis , which examines the frequency with which certain characterizations or descriptors are used, assertions analysis , which provides the frequency with which certain objects are characterized in particular ways. Assertions analysis involves combining designation analysis and attribution analysis. Such an analysis often takes the form of a matrix, with objects as columns and descriptors as rows.

Because assertions analysis is the most comprehensive form of semantical analysis, the authors employed this method of examination. Past experience with EBP, levels of dissemination, barriers to dissemination, gaps in dissemination, methods of addressing barriers, results of not using EBP, and the future of EBP were designated as objects and 70 items were designated as descriptors.

Past Experience with EBP

The majority of participants had experience with EBP program design including; running an intervention, evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, the process of forensic evaluation of children referred for sexual abuse, adapting interventions, and coordinating advocacy, policy, technical assistance, and research synthesis efforts at the state level. Beyond program design, participants had developed evidence based interventions, taught EBP in the classroom, and developed tool kit models of EBP.

Levels of Dissemination

The experts had experience with tool kits, literature, and training as methods of disseminating evidence based practice. Inclusion of practitioners in design, developing programs in the communities where they will be implemented, state and agency dissemination, norm changing, appropriate targeting of stakeholders, Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for models, supervision, national networks, quality assurance, and masters education programs were mentioned as means of dissemination they have seen employed. One interviewee said that when evidence based practices are disseminated and implemented they look like “rocket science” in comparison to standard care because standard care is so poor. However, as one expert stated, “there is a lot more ‘talk’ about EBP than actual implementation.”

Interviewees mentioned training time and funding policies as the biggest barriers to implementing EBP. They cited lack of consumer input, lack of practitioner input, lack of translation research, and lack of EBP training in master’s level education as barriers. For example, one expert described how clients may not like interventions based on EBP because practitioners who employ EBPs tend to approach treatment as if they are the experts. However, practitioners need to use EBP and remain open to the idea that the consumer has something to teach.

A lack of practitioner involvement, testing EBP in research labs, limited provider skills, training time, and belief that EBP is too restrictive were each described by the experts as problems. “Most agencies are reactive and just trying to get by. EBP isn’t part of the culture.” Also mentioned were dissent among stakeholders, a lack of education across systems, lack of agency staff, misunderstanding of what EBP is, and professors who do not apply their EBP research to their teaching as ultimate barriers to implementing EBP.

There was less variation in responses to gaps in implementing EBP than in respondents’ description of barriers to implementation. Experts mentioned both the limited research of EBPs and unclear methods of training in EBP as gaps in the system of dissemination. Also cited was a lack of consumer input and the limited number of EBPs, a reluctance to over generalize interventions, and the difficulty of transferring programs from research into practice as limitations. Respondents claimed that lack of education and training in EBP were major problems that keep EBP from being disseminated and implemented in the practice community. One respondent suggested:

The language is off when we talk about dissemination. There is an assumption that development happens in one place and then it is rolled out elsewhere. You can get into trouble with this. You need to include practitioners and support staff. How do they integrate services? Roll-out is rejected by providers because there is no ownership. You need key constituents to sit around the table and create something that will fit–knowledge about practice outside of practice. You have to get practitioners invested in the process of adaptation. Without early involvement of administrators and practitioners, the treatment will not be sustained after the researcher leaves the setting.

Addressing Barriers

To address barriers the respondents recommended ongoing training, EBP in master’s level curriculum, stakeholder buy-in and consumer buy-in. For example, the Gibbs model that incorporates EBP, client preference, and practitioner expertise allows enough flexibility for all parties to feel invested in the intervention. Manualized treatments and beginning research in agencies, as well as tool kits, technical assistance on site, and systemization were identified as effective strategies to overcome the hurdles of disseminating and implementing EBP. According to some of the experts interviewed, state involvement in EBP curriculum for universities has proven to be a good method to address the barriers for disseminating EBPs.

Results of Not Using EBP

Research experts agreed that interventions may not be helpful, and may even be harmful, if they are not backed by research evidence. Some felt that in the future agencies will not be reimbursed if they fail to practice from an evidence base and the field of social work will fail to progress in the absence of EBPs. Social work will continue to be viewed as a second-class citizen in comparison to other professions that are more willing to embrace research evidence.

Respondents offered diverse views of the future of EBP. Some respondents stated that there will be more funding for EBP in the future. On the other hand, other respondents felt that EBP is a buzz term that will probably die out with time. The experts interviewed described the future of EBP moving toward more qualitative methods, training in EBP at the master’s level, incorporation of the art of clinical practice, diverse EBP models, well-developed research on EBP, studies in actual practice settings, and more sophisticated and informed implementation and dissemination efforts.

Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations

This analysis is limited due to its sample size as well as by the lack of variation of professional affiliation. However, it does provide a starting point for future analysis. It is clear that experts in the field are indeed aware of the gaps and barriers to EBP dissemination. Future efforts would benefit from the incorporation of larger and more varied interview samples that include researchers and educators as well as agency administrators, direct service providers, and consumers of mental health and social work services. Additionally, future researchers should focus their attention on addressing barriers to dissemination and on the opinions and recommendations of other mental health services stake-holders such as clients, community members, and policy makers. Future EBP research needs to focus greater attention on strategies of effectively disseminating the programs that constitute the best practice standards.

The original aim of this study was to build a framework for the dissemination of evidence based mental health practices for social workers in community agencies through a review of the literature and interviews with experts in the field. Both the literature reviewed and the respondents offer similar observations and themes regarding EBP. The greatest agreement between the different researchers was found in the description of gaps and barriers to implementing and disseminating EBP. Problems include poor funding, a lack of training and support for agency staff and practitioners, a lack of consumer involvement, a failure to translate research into practice, and a lack of EBP education, particularly at the master’s level. Interviewees also described efforts to identify the most viable options to address barriers to implementing and disseminating. They, along with other researchers, have identified needs that must be addressed to move EBP forward. If social work does not meet these challenges, practitioners, and community organizations will not be best serving clients and will be in danger of losing competitive funding for services.

Some of the misconceptions about EBPs must be addressed in order to facilitate dissemination and implementation of evidence based interventions. EBPs are not promoted by the experts interviewed in this study as the final draft of best practices for mental health services. Rather, they are being promoted as efficacious treatments for specific disorders in certain populations of individuals suffering from mental illnesses. While further testing is needed to validate findings regarding EBPs for additional mental health disorders and different cultural groups, the information currently available regarding EBPs may be a best beginning practices guide in treatment planning for individuals with mental illnesses. Empirically validated EBPs are not recommended as a ‘magic bullet’ for the treatment of all mental illnesses. Research has, and continues to, explore the populations and disorders that are responding to specific EBPs, develop approaches to the flexible and practical employment of EBPs, and acknowledge that it is equally important to understand when the utilization of EBPs in treatment planning is or is not indicated.

IMPLICATIONS

Perhaps the most important finding of this study with regard to future research is the paucity of studies testing and validating implementation and dissemination strategies. No such studies have been conducted in social work (Gibbs, 2002). This research is needed to meet the growing demand for practitioners to base decisions on evidence. Researchers must also face the challenge of developing collaborative relationships with agencies, practitioners, communities, and clients. If research is not tailored to the questions posed by these stakeholders as well as researchers, the likelihood of its implementation into everyday practice is greatly decreased. The challenge to researchers in academic settings has the added component of focusing on incorporating research on EBPs into teaching curriculum.

Any successful effort toward the dissemination of EBP will have to address the four areas of barriers described in the literature and by respondents: knowledge, lack of fit, suspicion, and resources. Efforts that are not active and multifaceted seem unlikely to succeed. Organizational, practitioner, community, and client buy-in are also essential to a well-formed dissemination approach. Leadership backed by the power to effect change will be crucial. It takes more than an individual practitioner, agency, or educational institution to effect a cultural change within social work mental health services.

Existing frameworks offer a step in the right direction. However, they do not appear to provide a comprehensive and united approach to improving the dissemination of EBPs. Anderson and colleagues’ framework highlights the importance of developing shared goals between community organizations and researchers to combat problems inherent in poor relationships and communication and thus has the potential for impacting all four barriers by increasing coordination, understanding, and efficiency. However, this framework seems overly general. More detailed solutions would assist researchers and community organizations in efforts toward translating research into practice and constructing common goals. Additionally, the question of leadership is not addressed. Forging networks and consensus building can take a heroic effort and consume a considerable amount of time and energy. Strong leadership is needed to catalyze this process of change. Gibbs and Gambrill similarly offer useful approaches, such as involving social work education in the process of change and helping individual workers to be flexible and skilled in processing and applying new research. However, a large burden is placed on the practitioner and the problem of resources in particular is not addressed. Many social workers do not have the time or access to needed resources such as the internet. Rosen and Proctor’s model is more specific than either Anderson and colleagues or Gibbs and Gambrill, however they do not offer solutions to the problems of resources, translation of research into practice, or needed professional and cultural buy-in. While the industry-inspired D&D models offers important insights into how researchers might form a feedback loop with practitioners in the field to form more user-friendly tools, these approach seems limited in its application, particularly in the absence of a sophisticated infrastructure to support activities. General methods such as toolkits and practice guidelines are potentially useful strategies, and may supplement any of the other models. While each framework offers important insights into the best approaches toward the dissemination of EBP, none stands alone or above the rest.

CONCLUSIONS

To encourage practitioners to implement EBPs a unified approach that incorporates the best of all of the strategies outlined above and addresses the major barriers identified in this paper:

• Increase EBP education (particularly at the master’s level) as well as access to high quality continuing education based on EBPs.
• Build partnerships toward sharing EBP resources, including technology, training, and technical assistance, between agencies and practitioners.
• Facilitate buy-in and ownership of EBPs at all levels of stakeholders including practitioners, administrators, researchers, policy makers, and community members.
• Translate research into user-friendly, digestible, and specific approaches, providing tools such as tool kits, guidelines, and technical support to both support and encourage the use of EBPs.
• Improve the communication, feedback loop and relationship between researchers and practitioners.
• Increase the number of EBPs available to the field.
• Test the different types and mechanisms of dissemination, perhaps through analyses based on a taxonomic framework like the one proposed by Walter, Nutley, and Davies, to organize future research efforts.

The most important factor in facilitating change toward the use of research in professional practice is whether or not the profession wants to change ( Naylor, 1995 ). As the call for EBP in mental health services grows, social workers will benefit by being more research-minded and thereby improve services for their clients. The call for the use of research evidence in practice is not limited to a trend of policy, but is also aligned with the professional code of ethics ( NASW, 1996 ) and meeting the expectations of an increasingly savvy consumer movement in mental health ( Mowbray & Holter, 2002 ). Major national reports, which often shape federal and private funding streams, continually call for the use of research-supported interventions. However, policies that encourage, if not require, the use of EBPs cannot succeed without adequate training, resources, technical assistance and other infrastructure support necessary to deliver evidence based mental health interventions, Even if social workers endorse the value of EBP, practitioners and administrators may not have the knowledge or the resources to implement research based practices. The search for research evidence alone is difficult, and the more complicated the decision the less available the evidence ( Gray, 1997 ). Additional demonstration projects, and research and policy efforts aimed at moving EBPs into community-based organizations there-by building professional and organizational capacity are needed to address these and other barriers. Social workers are poised to move this work forward by transferring the increasingly broad and sophisticated body of research mindfully into the hands of the community agencies and practitioners.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Edward J. Mullen and Sandra Nutley for their assistance with this project. In addition, the contributions of all experts interviewed for this project are gratefully acknowledged.

This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health Grant 5T32-MH014623-24.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: The copy law of the United States (Title 17 U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship or research”. Note that in the case of electronic files, “reproduction” may also include forwarding the file by email to a third party. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use”, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. USC reserves the right to refuse to process a request if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. By using USC’s Integrated Document Delivery (IDD) services you expressly agree to comply with Copyright Law.

This work was presented at the AcademyHealth 2004 Annual Research Meeting, San Diego, CA; the National Service Research Award (NSRA) Trainee Conference, San Diego, CA; and the Fourth International Conference on Social Work in Health and Mental Health, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Copyright of Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work is the property of Haworth Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

• Anderson M, Cosby J, Swan B, Moore H, Broekhoven M. The use of research in local health service agencies. Social Science & Medicine. 1999; 49 :1007–1019. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balas EA, Boren SA. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2000. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Mental Health; 2000. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes V, Clouder L. Dissemination as evidence? Deconstructing the processes of disseminating qualitative research. Symposium presented at the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference, Coventry University; Coventry, England. 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barratt M. Organizational support for evidence-based practice within child and family social work: A collaborative study. Child and Family Social Work. 2003; 8 :143–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels SJ, Haley WE, Dums AR. Implementing evidence-based practices in geriatric mental health. Generations. 2002; 26 (1):90–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Card J. The sociometrics program archives: Promoting the dissemination of evidence-based practice through replication kits. Research on Social Work Practice. 2001; 11 (4):521–526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Comparison Matrix for Science Based intervention Programs: A Consumer’s Guide for Prevention Professionals. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2002. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/pdfs/ComparisonMatrix.pdf .
• Dawes RM. House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkin I, Shea T, Watkins JT, Imber SD, Sotsky SM, Collins JF, Glass DR, Pilkonis PA, Leber WR, Doherty JP, Fiester SJ, Parloff MB. National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program: General effectiveness of treatments. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1989; 46 :971–982. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher J. Is casework effective? A review. Social Work. 1973:5–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gambrill E. Evidence-based practice: An alternative to authority-based practice. Families in Society. 1999; 80 :341–350. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs LE. Evidence-Based Practice for the Helping Professions: A Practical Guide to Integrated Multimedia. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs LE, Gambrill E. Evidence-based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice. 2002; 12 :452–476. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray JAM. Evidence-Based Health Care. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Insel T. Science to service: Mental health care after the decade of the brain. Presentation given at Society for Social Work Research Annual Conference; New Orleans, LA. 2004. Jan 16, [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirk S, Rosenblatt A. Research knowledge and orientation among social work students. In: Briar S, Weissman H, Rubin A, editors. Research Utilization in Social Work Education. New York: Council on Social Work Education; 1981. pp. 29–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirk SA, Reid WJ. Science and Social Work: A critical appraisal. New-York: Columbia University Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landry R, Amara N, Lamari M. Climbing the ladder of research utilization. Science Communication. 2001; 22 (4):396–422. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis J. Building on evidence-based approach to social interventions. Children & Society. 1998; 12 :136–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKay MM, Hibbert R, Hoagwood K, Rodriquez L, Murray L, Legerski J, Fernandez D. Integrating evidence-based engagement interventions into “real world” child mental health settings. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. 2004; 4 :177–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mowbray CT, Holter MC. Mental health and mental illness: Out of the closet? Social Service Review. 2002; 76 :135–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullen EJ. Facilitating practitioner use of evidence-based practice. In: Roberts AR, Yeager K, editors. Evidence-Based Practice Manual: Research and Outcome Measures in Health and Human Services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullen EJ, Bacon W. A survey of practitioner adoption and implementation of practice guidelines and evidence-based treatments. In: Roberts AR, Yeager K, editors. Evidence-Based Practice Manual: Research and Outcome Measures in Health and Human Services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association of Social Workers. Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Author; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Naylor CD. The grey zones of clinical practice: Some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995; 345 (8953):840–842. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Rockville, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services; 2003. Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report. (No. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832) http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/downloads/downloads.html .
• New York State Office of Mental Health. Winds of Change: Creating an Environment of Quality. Albany, NY: New York State Office of Mental Health; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor EK. Leverage points for the implementation of evidence-based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. (in press) [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid WJ. The empirical practice movement. Social Service Review. 1994 June;:165–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Unit for Research Utilization (RURU) Research Unit for Research Utilization draft website database. 2003. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ruru/
• Rosen A. Knowledge use in direct practice. Social Service Review. 1994; 68 :561–577. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen A, Proctor EK, Morrow-Howell N, Auslander WE, Staudt M. Systematic Planned Practice: A Tool for Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation. 1993 Unpublished Manual. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shlonsky A, Gibbs L. Will the real evidence-based practice please stand up? Teaching process of evidence-based practice to helping professions. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. 2004; 4 :137–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thyer BA. What is evidence based practice? Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. 2004; 4 :167–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turnbull JE. Depression. In: Gitterman A, editor. Handbook of social work practice with vulnerable populations. New York: Columbia University Press; 1991. pp. 165–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000. http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/tableofcontents.htm#tracking .
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health; 1999. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/home.html .
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity—A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2001. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/cre/
• Walter I, Nutley S, Davies H. Developing a taxonomy of interventions used to increase the impact of research. Fife, Scotland: Research Unit for Research Utilization, University of St. Andrews; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization. The world health report: 2001: Mental health: New understandings, new hope. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.

Research Informed Practice

Integrating research into practice.

Our partnership seeks to bring together theory and practice to best support frontline social workers.  To do this we’re exploring new ways to enable academic colleagues to contribute to frontline practice – through spending time with frontline teams, providing advice and support or developing new modules to help practitioners to develop the skills required for research informed practice.

Both our university partners have internationally recognised research profiles.  Find out more about academic research specialisms of academic colleagues and current research projects via the links below.

Research Resources for Practitioners

Research podcasts.

The Social Work Research Podcast provides listeners with the opportunity to hear about research from researchers themselves.  Each episode Martin Webber, Professor of Social Work at University of York, talks to a social work researcher about a study they have conducted.  They explore the background, methods, findings and implications for social work practice.

The aim of the podcast is to help make research more accessible to social work students and practitioners. It contributes to students’ learning and provides a source of continuous professional development for practitioners.  A link to the research paper under discussion in each episode is provided for those wishing to extend their learning.

Connecting People

The importance of social connections  and how this impacts on  mental health recovery .  The Connecting People blog is a place for sharing information, thoughts, stories and ideas.  This includes podcasts and short films, so it’s very accessible for service users and practitioners.

University Research Projects

Research resources are available from both our partner universities.  They offer many current themes relevant to social work.  Visit they websites to search their current projects:-

• University of York
• University of Huddersfield

Practitioner Led Research Projects

Read about the Practitioner Led Research Projects from two of the social workers completing the post graduate research degrees and the research findings from one of the projects.

Opportunities for our Social Workers

Our 2023-24 CPD programme  provides opportunities for our Social Workers to engage with the latest academic research, apply research to practice and undertake accredited research projects aligned to local practice priorities.

The partnership has funded Social Workers to complete the  Innovations in Professional Practice module. The course supported students to develop advanced skills in order to carry out a small scale research project and evidence the impact for their service area.

We’ve also funded four Social Workers to undertake postgraduate research degrees on topics aligned to local practice needs.  These opportunities aim to develop the research literacy of social  workers and support the integration of research findings into local practice.  Research topics  include:

• Mental Health Act assessment referrals
• Collaborative working between adult mental health services and children and families services – experiences and views of frontline Social Worker

We are committed to continuing to provide opportunities for practitioners and will advertise any further opportunities on this website and via Workforce Development Teams so watch this space.

Practitioners Contributing to Teaching

Over the next 12 months we’ll be developing new opportunities for practitioners to contribute to teaching on degree programmes.  We already have dedicated Lecturer Practitioners working across practice and academia.  Read our case study to find out more about this role and the benefits for students.  New models will build upon what practitioners have told us about the value of teaching in universities and introduce new opportunities for Social Workers to get involved with academic delivery. Keep checking back for more information.

Sign-up and be the first to hear about the latest Yorkshire, Urban & Rural Teaching Partnership news.

• Our Partnership
• Learn with us
• Develop with us
• Work with us
• Social work jobs
• E-News Archives
• Privacy Policy

Social Work 795: Evaluation of Social Work Practice and Programs

• What is Evidence-Based Practice?
• Create a search strategy
• Find Evidence-Based Interventions
• Research methods
• Cite sources in APA
• Citation Managers

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)

NASW states that social work EBP is "a process involving creating an answerable question based on a client or organizational need, locating the best available evidence to answer the question, evaluating the quality of the evidence as well as its applicability, applying the evidence, and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the solution."

Read more from NASW about EBP in Social Work

EBP Tutorial Duke University Medical Center Library

Learn more about evidence synthesis reviews

Levels of Evidence

• The Pyramid
• Non-Research Information

Observational Studies

Experimental studies.

• Critical Analysis

Levels of evidence

The levels of evidence pyramid demonstrates a hierarchy of information sources based on the strength of the evidence reported. Click through the tabs to learn more about the each of the levels and the strength of the evidence and example research articles for different study types.

Non-Evidence-based sources

While these information sources do not meet the criteria for evidence, this kind of information can help you to get background information or context on a particular topic area, are typically easier to understand, and may include references to evidence-based research.

• Non-Evidence-based Expert Opinions : These can include commentary statements, speeches, or editorials written by prominent experts asserting ideas that are reached by conjecture, casual observation, emotion, religious belief, or ego
• Non-EBP guidelines : Practice guidelines that exist because of eminence, authority, eloquence, providence, or diffidence based approaches to healthcare
• News Articles : News articles are written by journalists for the general public and may report on or summarize research studies and outcomes
• Editorials : Opinions written by experts, non-experts, or regular folks that are published by news outlets, magazines, or academic journals
• Commentary : similar to an editorial, but it may be identified as a commentary, which can be an invited informal and non-reviewed short article pertaining to a particular concept or idea.
• Narrative literature review articles : Non-systematic and non-exhaustive survey of the literature on a specific topic. However, evidence synthesis review articles are considered to be a high degree of evidence by nature of their methodology (see critical appraisal tab).

Let's Talk about Review Articles

Review articles are common in health literature. They are typically overviews of literature found on topics, but do not go so far as to meet the methodological requirements for a Systematic Review.

These articles may contain some critical analysis, but will not have the rigorous criteria that a Systematic Review does. They can be used to demonstrate evidence, albeit they do not make a very strong case as they are secondary articles and not originally conducted observational or experimental research.

These types of publications have the lowest evidence strength in the hierarchy. The evidence is largely anecdotal since they often lack a systematic methodology, have limited statistical sampling, even if the studies are in some instances empirical and verifiable. Examples of observational studies are:

• example: Thoele, K., Ferren, M., Moffat, L. et al. (2020). Development and use of a toolkit to facilitate implementation of an evidence-based intervention: a descriptive case study. Implement Sci Commun, 1(86). DOI: 10.1186/s43058-020-00081-x
• example: Tone, J., Chelius, B. & Miller, Y.D. (2022). The effectiveness of a feminist-informed, individualised counselling intervention for the treatment of eating disorders: a case series study. J Eat Disord , 10(70). DOI: 10.1186/s40337-022-00592-z
• Choi, S., Bunting, A., Nadel, T., Neighbors, C. J., & Oser, C. B. (2023). Organizational access points and substance use disorder treatment utilization among Black women: a longitudinal cohort study. Health & Justice , 11 (1), 1–12. DOI: 10.1186/s40352-023-00236-7
• Example: Belenko, S., Dennis, M., Hiller, M., Mackin, J., Cain, C., Weiland, D., Estrada, B., & Kagan, R. (2022). The impact of juvenile drug treatment courts on substance use, mental health, and recidivism: Results from a multisite experimental evaluation. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 49 (4), 436-455. DOI: 10.1007/s11414-022-09805-4
• Example:  Putnam-Hornstein, E., Prindle, J., & Hammond, I. (2021). Engaging Families in Voluntary Prevention Services to Reduce Future Child Abuse and Neglect: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Prevention Science , 22 (7), 856–865. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-021-01285-w

Critical Appraisal

"Critical appraisal is the process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge its trustworthiness, and its value and relevance in a particular context." Burls, A. (2009). What is critical appraisal? In What Is This Series: Evidence-based medicine. Available online at What is Critical Appraisal?

Examples of Critical Appraisal

Evidence synthesis reviews are types of critical appraisal. Examples of evidence synthesis reviews are scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis. To find these types of articles, search for "systematic review", "scoping review", or meta-analysis in the title. Learn more about conducting evidence synthesis reviews .

• Example:  Kokorelias, K. M., PhD., Shiers-Hanley, J., Li, Z., & Hitzig, S. L., PhD. (2023/10//). A Systematic Review on Navigation Programs for Persons Living With Dementia and Their Caregivers. The Gerontologist, 63 (8), 1341. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnac054

​ Example:  Hans, B. B., Drozd, F., Olafsen, K., Nilsen, K. H., Linnerud, S., Kjøbli, J., & Jacobsen, H. (2023/08//). The effect of relationship-based interventions for maltreated children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 35 (3), 1251-1271. doi: 10.1017/S0954579421001164

• Example:  After thorough testing and experimentation, researchers, doctors, and product developers created and started using less-invasive oxygen monitoring devices to improve recovery times after surgeries. These are now standard equipment.

Tips for identifying empirically based research

Characteristics to look for:

States the problem, population, or research question under study

Defines the group or issue being studied

Study methodology is reported

Alternative interventions may be included or compared

May be quantitative or qualitative   [check with your course instructor or syllabus, as the course focus may be on just one or the other]

May include tests or surveys (embedded, as an appendix, or referred to by proper name)

May be reproducible; to be replicated or adapted to a new study

Tips for searching for empirically based research

Search for peer-reviewed journal articles that report research findings in one of the recommended databases. Some databases have a filter or advanced search limiter focus results on empirical research, for example filters for systematic reviews or randomized control trials . If a filter/limiter is not available, enter keywords to match on appropriate content and/or to look for these terms in the abstract or article itself:

• methods or methodology
• quantitative
• statistic* ( the asterisk is used as a "wildcard" ending to your search term which allows the database to match on statistic, statistics or statistical)
• [inclusion of] charts, statistical tables or graphs
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Create a search strategy >>
• Last Updated: Jul 16, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.uwm.edu/SW795

Competencies and Practice Behaviors

Competency 1: Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior

1.1 make ethical decisions by applying standards of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, relevant laws and regulations, models for ethical decision making, ethical conduct of research, and additional codes of ethics within the profession as appropriate to the context

1.2 demonstrate professional behavior; appearance; and oral, written, and electronic communication;

1.3 use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate practice outcomes; and

1.4 use supervision and consultation to guide professional judgment and behavior.

Competency 2: Advance Human Rights and Social, Racial, Economic, and Environmental Justice

2.5 advocate for human rights at the individual, family, group, organizational, and community system levels; and

2.6 engage in practices that advance human rights to promote social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

Competency 3: Engage Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) in Practice

3.7 demonstrate anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work practice at the individual, family, group, organizational, community, research, and policy levels; and

3.8 demonstrate cultural humility by applying critical reflection, self-awareness, and self-regulation to manage the influence of bias, power, privilege, and values in working with clients and constituencies, acknowledging them as experts of their own lived experiences.

Competency 4: Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice

4.9 apply research findings to inform and improve practice, policy, and programs; and

4.10 identify ethical, culturally informed, anti-racist, and anti-oppressive strategies that address inherent biases for use in quantitative and qualitative research methods to advance the purposes of social work.

Competency 5: Engage in Policy Practice

5.11 use social justice, anti-racist, and anti-oppressive lenses to assess how social welfare policies affect delivery of and access to social services; and

5.12 apply critical thinking to analyze, formulate, and advocate for policies that advance human rights and social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

Competency 6: Engage with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

6.13 apply knowledge of human behavior and person-in-environment, as well as interprofessional conceptual frameworks, to engage with clients and constituencies; and

6.14 use empathy, reflection, and interpersonal skills to engage in culturally responsive practice with clients and constituencies.

Competency 7: Assess Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

7.15 apply theories of human behavior and person-in-environment, as well as other culturally responsive and interprofessional conceptual frameworks, when assessing clients and constituencies; and

7.16 demonstrate respect for client self-determination during the assessment process by collaborating with clients and constituencies in developing a mutually agreed-upon plan.

Competency 8: Intervene with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

8.17 engage with clients and constituencies to critically choose and implement culturally responsive, evidence-informed interventions to achieve client and constituency goals; and

8.18 incorporate culturally responsive methods to negotiate, mediate, and advocate with and on behalf of clients and constituencies.

Competency 9: Evaluate Practice with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

9.19 select and use culturally responsive methods for evaluation of outcomes; and

9.20 critically analyze outcomes and apply evaluation findings to improve practice effectiveness with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

• About the Acting NIMH Director
• Advisory Boards and Groups
• Strategic Plan
• Offices and Divisions
• Careers at NIMH
• Staff Directories
• Getting to NIMH

From Breakthroughs to Best Practices: How NIMH Transforms Research Into Real-World Care

Patricia Arean, Susan Azrin, Michael Freed, Adam Haim, Jennifer Humensky, Stephen O’Connor, Jane Pearson, Mary Rooney, Matthew Rudorfer, Joel Sherrill, and Belinda Sims, on behalf of the Division of Services and Intervention Research. 

February 26, 2024 • 75th Anniversary

For 75 years, NIMH has transformed the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research—bringing hope to millions of people. This Director’s Message, guest written by NIMH’s Division of Services and Intervention Research , is part of an anniversary series celebrating this momentous milestone.

More than one in five adults in the United States live with a mental illness, and this number is expected to rise in the coming decades. Since its establishment, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has known that people need more than exciting scientific discoveries—they need access to effective treatments and the best quality of care available. After all, finding new treatments and cures means little to the millions of people impacted by mental illnesses if there is no way to translate these breakthroughs into policy and practice.

In the Division of Services and Intervention Research (DSIR) , we provide the critical link between basic and clinical science and explore the best practices to implement those evidence-based treatments. We’re dedicated to growing and investing in this field of science, and although much work is still to be done, we’ve had some notable successes impacting real-world public health practices and policies.

Improving outcomes for people with early psychosis

One example of research that has bridged the divide between science and policy is the Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode , or RAISE, studies. Research has shown that young people with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders have much better outcomes when they receive effective treatment within months of their first symptoms. The RAISE studies, which NIMH supported, focused on methods to detect and treat early psychosis in a timelier fashion. These studies found that a type of care called coordinated specialty care (CSC)—a recovery-oriented, team-based approach to treating early psychosis—was more effective than the typical care used at the time.

NIMH engaged extensively with members of the early schizophrenia care community to ensure RAISE findings would be relevant and actionable for rapid translation into practice. These efforts created the momentum for the broad expansion of CSC treatment programs nationwide. In 2023, the creation of associated billing codes further supported this model of mental health care, allowing for increased adoption by care providers.

From CSC programs in two states in 2008, the United States now has more than 360 such programs, allowing more people to receive this evidence-based care.

Removing barriers to schizophrenia treatment

Clozapine, the only drug approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, is underutilized in the United States, particularly among African American communities. Many reasons have been linked to this disparity, including provider bias, lack of trust in the mental health care system for African American clients, and an overprescribing of first-generation antipsychotic medication for African Americans with schizophrenia. Additionally, clozapine has been associated with an increased risk of the onset or exacerbation of neutropenia, a condition that affects white blood cells and impairs the body’s ability to fight infection. Benign ethnic neutropenia is a chronic form of neutropenia that's present from birth and commonly seen in people of African descent.

In 2015, NIMH supported a large, multinational study  that investigated the use of clozapine in individuals of African descent who have benign neutropenia  . Individuals with treatment-resistant schizophrenia who had benign neutropenia had previously been declared ineligible to receive clozapine treatment due to the Food and Drug Administration’s prescribing guidelines related to this medication. The finding of this NIMH-supported study opened up clozapine treatment to a whole new group of individuals with schizophrenia, allowing them to benefit from this important medication.

Building upon these findings, NIMH is currently funding research that evaluates the effectiveness of an educational program for clinicians about clozapine  . Hundreds of prescribers and clinicians throughout the state of Maryland are participating in an innovative educational tele-mentoring program that connects them with centralized experts. The prescribing activity of clinicians participating in the educational program will be compared with those who have not participated to see if the program is effective at increasing the use of clozapine among those who would benefit from it.

Given the real-world context of this study, the findings can potentially inform clinical practice and make a needed treatment more accessible to many African Americans.

Preventing mental illnesses in youth

Recognizing that many mental health conditions have their origins early in life, NIMH has supported several seminal studies showing the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent conduct disorder and other behavioral conditions in youth. These include evaluations of a classroom-wide behavioral intervention called the Good Behavior Game   , a school-home wraparound intervention called Fast Track  , and a brief family-based intervention for toddlers called Family Check-up  .

Today, NIMH continues to support the analysis of data from participants in these studies who have been followed into adulthood   . Initial results from these longitudinal analyses show sustained effects of the interventions on conduct disorder and unanticipated positive impacts on other mental health outcomes, such as reductions in adolescent and adult depression, anxiety, and suicide risk, thus demonstrating the broad and enduring effects of early prevention efforts.

Early intervention represents an important pathway to making quality care accessible to everyone, particularly when embedded within a broader approach that addresses social determinants of health . NIMH is currently supporting research that tests strategies to improve access to prevention services, including primary care-based depression prevention for adolescents  and mental illness prevention for at-risk Latinx youth  .

Suicide prevention in emergency departments

An estimated 20% of people who die by suicide visit the emergency department in the 60 days before their death, making these settings an important target for suicide prevention efforts. Given the importance of emergency departments as a place to identify and provide support for people at risk for suicide, NIMH has supported research establishing the effectiveness of suicide prevention services in these settings.

An example of this research is the multisite Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation (ED-SAFE) study. ED-SAFE demonstrated  that providing universal screening for suicide risk and a brief safety planning intervention in emergency departments, combined with limited follow-up contacts once people had been discharged, decreased subsequent suicide attempts by 30% compared to usual care.

A follow-up study also supported by NIMH, called ED-SAFE 2  , tested the integration of universal screening for suicide risk and safety planning into the clinical workflow of eight emergency departments. Study results  indicated that integration of this clinical workflow resulted in sustained reductions in suicide deaths and subsequent acute health care visits.

These landmark studies convey the power of providing relatively brief, well-timed interventions during emergency encounters to reduce the risk of later suicide. NIMH continues to fund research to expand the reach of emergency department-based interventions, including the use of digital health technologies and strategies to overcome workforce shortages and other barriers to implementing suicide screening and intervention (for instance, digital technology to increase the reach of ED-SAFE  ; a multi-component, tailored strategy for suicide risk reduction  ). NIMH works closely with public and private partners to take recent data, like those collected during the ED-SAFE studies, and help translate them into real-world practice   .

Moving forward

The studies and projects shared here are only a few examples of exciting areas of investment that have resulted in real-world changes in care. Although we’ve made progress, we recognize the need to continue supporting research with near-term potential and cultivating a vibrant workforce to lead the next generation of services and intervention research.

Further, NIMH is committed to working with researchers, communities, payors, advocacy groups, state policymakers, federal agencies, and others to help support intervention and services science that will significantly impact mental health policy and care practices—ultimately helping people access better mental health care.

In accordance with international sanctions, the Semrush platform is no longer accessible to businesses registered or based in Russia. We’re sorry for the inconvenience and if you believe there is a mistake, please send us an email to [email protected] so our team can review.