[Adta] evidence based practice

[Elissa White]

Sharon,

thanks for forwarding this.  I believe it gives us a perspective that 
needs
to be considered.

Elissa White


On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Sharon Chaiklin wrote:

>
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sharon Chaiklin
> To: ADTA Listserve
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:01 AM
> Subject: Fw: [Adta] evidence based practice
>
> Below are some remarks made by a dean of Social Work when we presented 
> him the question re evidence based practice as taught in social work.
>  
> Also,  I would like to remind all that the Chace Foundation collects 
> and puts out all student thesis abstracts with the newest collection 
> due out this fall...if not before.  The purpose of collecting these 
> and publishing them over the years is for the very reason people have 
> been discussing:.  What have students done and what can be built upon.
>  
> It is very exciting to see the enthusiasm and the ACTION that is being 
> taken to make this happen.   Thank you all.
> Sharon
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barth, Rick
> To: Harris Chaiklin
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [Adta] evidence based practice
>
> Harry: The way that we are now talking about this in the School is 
> that evidence based practice (EBP) is a process that includes 
> understanding the problem, understanding client preferences, and 
> understanding the evidence on what interventions might help (and 
> possible side effects) so that you can work with clients to choose the 
> intervention that the client (or guardian) selects that maximizes 
> their goals (it might not always be the one that has the best 
> likelihood of impact).  Evidence supported interventions (ESIs) are 
> those specific interventions that have gotten the seal of approval for 
> consistently doing significantly more good than harm or nothing.  So, 
> I’m not sure about the first part of her post.
>  
> NONETHELESS, this is a very important area for us, because we have 
> lots of curriculum components that are similar to dance therapy—they 
> have a long history of development with strong underpinnings that 
> would argue for the logic of their success, but probably do not enough 
> rigorous study to get into systematic reviews like those requested by 
> AHRQ or get on the SAMHSA or NIJ or BLUEPRINT ESI lists.  (Without 
> going to look for a systematic review on dance therapy, which is what 
> I should do,  I’m going to proceed with this argument.) So, in the 
> case of dance therapy, we know from basic scientific evidence that 
> movement and exercise is related to changes in serotonin levels and in 
> immune responses that are beneficial.  We know from basic scientific 
> evidence that relaxation and concentration training—part of what is 
> learned through dancing--help reduce impulsivity.  I am sure that 
> there are many more pieces that you and Sharon know about that also 
> create a body of evidence that can help sustain a logic model that 
> would serve to justify the use of dance therapy for at least some 
> conditions.  Should we teach it, then? Should insurers pay for it, 
> then?  Perhaps so.  Still, if the logic model is tight enough, and the 
> basic science is good enough, then what prevents the accumulation of 
> evidence to the point at which Dance Therapy can be added to the AHRQ 
> list, for at least one of the conditions listed?
>  
> If we excluded all practices that are not approved by AHRQ or on one 
> of the other governmental ESI lists, we would have a very short MSW 
> program and do a lot of standing around in the field. So we only 
> exclude interventions like Holding Therapy (based on attachment 
> theory), that has killed children?  Or, do we have a higher standard 
> and being to exclude interventions with minimal or no evidence and a 
> weak logic model?  We haven’t begun this work, here, but it is a 
> judgement we have to make every day in the MSW program and CPE—what 
> should we continue to promulgate as important to know.
>  
> I’d welcome your thoughts on this.  I’d also like you to consider 
> moving some of this discussion to our BLOG so that we can begin to 
> engage the SSW in the curricular implications of EBP.
>  
> Thanks as always for staying in touch,
>  
> Rick
>
> From: Harris Chaiklin [mailto:hchaikli at comcast.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:55 AM
> To: Barth, Rick
> Subject: Fw: [Adta] evidence based practice
>  
> The dance therapist list serve has gotten into a lot of discussion 
> about the nature of research. I thought this was a particularly good 
> message.
>  
> From: Joan S. Ingalls [mailto:joan.ingalls at verizon.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:09 PM
> To: skdmt2
> Subject: Re: [Adta] evidence based practice
>  
> Susan,
>  Thanks for asking.
>   My thoughts are that we need to be clear about what we mean by 
> evidenced-base practice, and in addition, not mix up evidence-based 
> practice with evidience-based research (which seems redundant)
>    Evidence-based practice from what I understeood a few years ago 
> meant merely a class of programs like job programs where the evidence 
> was there easy to see whether or not a person got a job (or a home or 
> a degree or quit smoking or quit drinking or merely attended over a 
> period of time - reached the goal of the program whatever it was).
>   The term did not refer at all to the method or theory that was used 
> in the program.
>   I think that recently "evidence-based" has been misunderstood. There 
> has always been a pull to "prove our method works." So that is not 
> new. What has caused all the recent "buzz" is that there is funding or 
> special recognition for "evidence-based" programs, ie the attachment I 
> sent. My thinking is that dance therapy could never qualify because it 
> is not a "program" with a concrete goal. It is a methodology or theory 
> or therapy. It is a means by which evidence based progams may or may 
> not succeed.
>   I think the attachment is asking for people to suggest criteria, or 
> programs that could be considered evidence-based. This effort is a 
> service to agencies that want to send clients to programs that are in 
> this catagory. I guess they get a special kind of funding or 
> recognition when they do that.
>   I am in the field of sport psychology and the people interested in 
> promoting bio-feedback are thowing this term around trying to 
> intimidate others and win disciples. I don't think too many of us are 
> taken in. Those people want to prove "what we do works" will continue 
> to do  research as they always have - basing it on data (a form of 
> evidence, but a different flavor than that in "evidence-based 
> practice") that they collect. Joan
>>  _______________________________________________
> Adta mailing list
> Adta at adta.org
> http://lists.adta.org/mailman/listinfo/adta
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 11745 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.adta.org/pipermail/adta/attachments/20070219/483bc910/attachment.bin