Bias, racism and evidence-based practice: The case for more focused development of the child welfare evidence base

Background: As the field of brain and spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) continues to grow, so will the need for a comprehensive evidence base. However, it is unclear to what degree trainees feel properly equipped to use SRS. We assess the perceptions and comfort level reported by neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents concerning the evidence-based practice of SRS. Methods: A continuing medical education (CME) course provided peer-reviewed updates regarding treatment with intracranial and spinal SRS. Presentations were given by neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents with mentorship by senior faculty. To gauge perceptions regarding SRS, attendees were surveyed. Responses before and after the course were analyzed using the Fisher’s exact test in R statistical software. Results: Participants reported the greatest knowledge improvements concerning data registries (P < 0.001) and clinical trials (P = 0.026). About 82% of all (n = 17) radiation oncology and neurosurgery residents either agreed or strongly agreed that a brain and spine SRS rotation would be beneficial in their training. However, only 47% agreed or strongly agreed that one was currently part of their training. In addition, knowledge gains in SRS indications (P = 0.084) and ability to seek collaboration with colleagues (P = 0.084) showed notable trends. Conclusion: There are clear knowledge gaps shared by potential future practitioners of SRS. Specifically, knowledge regarding SRS data registries, indications, and clinical trials offer potential areas for increased educational focus. Furthermore, the gap between enthusiasm for increased SRS training and the current availability of such training at medical institutions must be addressed.

Download Full-text

Evidence-based practice in social work: Who are the critics?

Journal of Social Work ◽

10.1177/1468017320955131 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 146801732095513

Author(s):

Joakim Finne

Keyword(s):

Higher Education ◽

Social Work ◽

Child Welfare ◽

Social Welfare ◽

Social Workers ◽

Research Methods ◽

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Social Sector ◽

The Social

Summary The aim of this study is to analyse attitudes towards and the utilisation of evidence-based practice among social workers in Norway. The data were collected in 2014–2015 from social workers in four Norwegian counties. The sample consists of 2060 social workers registered as members of the Norwegian Union of Social Educators and Social Workers. Findings The main findings in this study indicate that social workers in child welfare are generally less critical of evidence-based practice than those within social welfare. Higher education and knowledge about evidence-based practice are seen as predictors for less critical attitudes towards the concept. The findings further suggest that social workers who use manuals and standardised procedures are less critical of evidence-based practice. Applications Understanding social workers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice is important in order to facilitate the best possible practices. This study emphasises the importance of increasing knowledge of evidence-based practice in the social sector, and the need to further investigate how research methods and evidence-based practice concepts are translated into practice.

Download Full-text

Building the house of evaluation: Reconsidering the blueprints and bricks for knowledge accumulation in evaluation

Evaluation ◽

10.1177/1356389018763244 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 24 (2) ◽

pp. 185-201 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sebastian Lemire ◽

Christina A. Christie

Keyword(s):

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Knowledge Building ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Evidence Based ◽

The Public ◽

Body Of Knowledge ◽

What Works ◽

Alternative Approaches ◽

Cumulative Knowledge

The push for evidence-based practice is persistent in the public sector—what counts is what works. One central premise for evidence-based practice is the existence of an evidence base; that is, an accumulated and generalizable body of knowledge. Informed by a recent systematic review, we examine the promises and pitfalls of meta-analysis (the statistical workhorse of systematic reviews) as the primary blueprint for cumulative knowledge building in evaluation. This analysis suggests that the statistical assumptions underlying the meta-analytic framework raise issues that, at least in regards to producing generalizable knowledge, may cut even deeper than is suggested by common criticisms. Advancing beyond meta-analysis, we consider alternative approaches for knowledge building and reflect on the implications of these for individual evaluations.

Download Full-text