This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Effective Altruism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed the list of practice guides -- current EBPs include assertive community treatment, supported employment (also known as supported competitive employment or supported work), integrated dual disorders treatment, family psychoeducation, and illness management and recovery.

This can't become a list of specific guides or it will become cluttered with loads of stuff no one will understand outside of their particular area.

Hello. I noticed the tag on the article. I have some information for this article that may add better context. Docleaf 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence-Based Practice seems like a meta-description that includes EBM, specifically note the paragraph on Evidence Based Practice in the Evidence-based medicine:

In his 1996 inaugural speech[19] as President of the Royal Statistical Society, Adrian Smith held out evidence-based medicine as an exemplar for all public policy. He proposed that Evidence-Based Practice should be established for education, prisons and policing policy and all areas of government.

It seems to me that the discussion of patient care (particularly in the lead) should be moved to EBM, and this article modified to be more of an overview of the various "Evidence-based" practices, like Evidence-based management, Evidence-based design and perhaps new article, like: Evidence-based education Herd of Swine (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence based practice is not unique to the field of medicine. A quick Google search indicates EBP are used in education, library science, business, corrections, social work, mental health, nursing, and, I'm sure, many other areas. This posting should be a general definition of Evidence Based Practices with links, if desired, to EBP within specific fields. It is highly incorrect and presumptuous to limit this entry to medical EBP only. I am not a pro and do not have time to make necessary edits but sincerely hope to see this article altered significantly in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.133.96 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to adding to a page in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to do the references as I see them here. If someone wants to fix them so they are correct, I'd really appreciate it. I don't have time now to read how to do it, but I will and will fix it, if no one else does. I ask your patience with this newbie.

Professor Oz (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Professor Oz[reply]

No problem prof! Thanks for contributing. Let me know on my talk page if you need help with anything. Peace, delldot talk 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence based practice is not unique to the field of medicine. A quick Google search indicates EBP are used in education, library science, business, corrections, social work, mental health, nursing, and, I'm sure, many other areas. This posting should be a general definition of Evidence Based Practices with links, if desired, to EBP within specific fields. It is highly incorrect and presumptuous to limit this entry to medical EBP only. I am not a pro and do not have time to make necessary edits but sincerely hope to see this article altered significantly in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.133.96 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs material about levels of evidence, including several protocols that have been developed to guide people in deciding the quality of evidence supporting a practice. Also, it seems appropriate to discuss the role of meta-analysis and of systematic research syntheses in decisions about the efficacy of a treatment. (Oh yes, that's another thing, efficacy versus effectiveness.)I will begin to add some of these. Are there other suggestions? How about the "practice wisdom, family values" issues? Much as I'm wary of these, it would be unrealistic to omit them completely. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poof! Enough for one day. More tomorrow.

I haven't removed anything that was already here-- that may need doing, to get it into reasonable shape. Jean Mercer (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although i sympathize with the author of the last sentence in this article, I think a source needs to be cited. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does EBP really only apply to MH and behavioural interventions? What do medical doctors call their bit? Fainites ^barley 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They say EBM, and there is an article on that. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a great improvement. I have a copy of 'Chaffin and Friedrich' on evidence based treatments in child abuse and neglect if thats any use to you Jean. I am also looking for a link to NHS EBP standards. Fainites ^barley 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Chaffin & Friedrich? Is this Bill Friedrich from the Mayo Clinic, who died about 4 years ago-- I guess it must be.

By the way, you might see if you can use http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/crd_4ph5.pdf. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the C & F-- the glossary they use could be helpful to people. I don't think the text tells much. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(shift this over )

Heres a link to the Oxford Centre for evidence based whatever [1] and a link to a toolbox that, hopefully, works. [2]. Fainites ^barley 22:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably useful, but the toolbox dates back to Sackett in 2001, and there has been a lot since then. If you can find something that's less medical that would be good-- e.g. the NREPP site? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware - CEBM is what the NHS use. I'm also hoping to hear back from the site with broken links that had a specific section on MH.. Fainites ^barley 10:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Evidence-based medicine ever had anything to do with quackery. It was about real doctors using treatments based on genuine expert knowledge, but without sufficient scientific evidence.

In all those fields there are licensing laws that forbid anyone not properly educated from practicing anyway. Taw (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the limitations acknowledge by Norcross et al (2006) was that if EBPs are pushed too heavily then the innovative and new treatments which do yet have a research base may be overshadowed. We need to keep in mind that the EBPs of today could become discredited treatments in the future. Also, we don't want to discourage innovation. Norcross et al. acknowledged that many of the experts polled may have rated the credibility of certain treatments according to there preferred paradigm. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBP DOES NOT equal EST! ERT is but one aspect of EBP. Read Westen, D., Novotny, C.M., & Thompson-Brenner, H. (2005) for further explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.145.102 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will help to verify sources for this article as per the label on the header of the articleDaveRandal (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section)#Length Shawnc (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article absolutely needs a section on criticism, at least in the field of psychology/psychiatry (I don't know about the others). I say this because of the extent to which the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies were (are) behind the push for "evidence"—it's not merely about "better results", it's also about things like undermining treatment modalities like psychoanalysis (which don't prescribe medications, a no-no for big pharma) and tend to run on for a very long time (unlike CBT, which has thus become the darling of health insurance companies who absolutely HATE expensive open-ended treatments).

Also it should be noted how drug treatments are far easier to study using evidence-based criteria (for such reasons as the fact that dosages are quantifiable) while something like a purely talk-based therapy inherently *doesn't* lend itself well to research methods borrowed more from the physical (as opposed to social) sciences.

Historian932 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. CBT, DBT,and EBP are everyone's favorite initials, especially espceially insurance cos. I would also like to see a section on criticism. Ooze2b (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start: http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/9/1179 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooze2b (talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you should add how evidence based pratices in psychology were mostly studyed on White males and they don't take a person's culture into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.182.40 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence based practice is not unique to the field of medicine. A quick Google search indicates EBP are used in education, library science, business, corrections, social work, mental health, nursing, and, I'm sure, many other areas. This posting should be a general definition of Evidence Based Practices with links, if desired, to EBP within specific fields. It is highly incorrect and presumptuous to limit this entry to medical EBP only. I am not a pro and do not have time to make necessary edits but sincerely hope to see this article altered significantly in the future. 67.247.133.96 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  i'm currently doing a paper on ebp and psychosocial rehab what is ebp approach identifying effective services

The phrase ...Empirically supported treatments (ESTs) are defined as "clearly specified psychological treatments shown to be efficacious in controlled research with a delineated population"... seems to apply to the subset of EB behaviorally-therapeutic interventions within the broader class of EB therapeutic interventions. Could this be adjusted (within the context of a direct quotation)? MaynardClark (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evidence-based practice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.musc.edu/cvc.guidel.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nrepp.samsha.gov/review-criteria.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128130941/http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/def.html to http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/def.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917193454/http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/about/home.php to http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/about/home.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rhrq.gov/clinic/epc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120110445/http://nursingandhealth.asu.edu/ebp to http://nursingandhealth.asu.edu/ebp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows how to add the picture on the Google knowledge graph, it would really liven up the page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major sections of the Evidence-based practice article appear to have been copied and pasted directly, and the source may be protected by copyright. The original source might be the California Institute for Behavioral Health Solutions, or this book, Clinician's Guide to Evidence Based Practices: Mental Health and the Addictions Paperback. I found the material here http://binsggatoban.otzo.com/3299.p I did the section on education, so I am comfortable with that.

It seems it would be a simple matter to rewrite the article and cite the sources. John NH (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]