Christopher J Hopwood,Katie Aafjes-van Doorn,Vera Békés,Xiaochen Luo,Whitney R Ringwald,Aidan G C Wright
{"title":"心理学研究是否产生了临床医生认为有用的知识?","authors":"Christopher J Hopwood,Katie Aafjes-van Doorn,Vera Békés,Xiaochen Luo,Whitney R Ringwald,Aidan G C Wright","doi":"10.1037/amp0001538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The science-practice gap is a barrier to evidence-based health care. We sought to examine the match between the kinds of studies done by clinical psychology researchers and the kinds of evidence practicing clinicians find useful. We reviewed the prevalence of research questions on how people differ from one another (between-person) and how people differ from their own averages across time (within-person) in six high-impact clinical psychology journals and compared results with a survey of 164 practicing clinicians who rated the importance of between- and within-person questions for their work. Whereas researchers focus mostly on between-person questions, clinicians are at least-and in some cases more-interested in within-person questions. This could pose a challenge for science-practice integration as the clinical community may feel as though the research evidence being produced is not as relevant as it could be, and the scientific community in turn might feel as though practice in the clinical community is not sufficiently evidence based. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is psychological research producing the kind of knowledge clinicians find useful?\",\"authors\":\"Christopher J Hopwood,Katie Aafjes-van Doorn,Vera Békés,Xiaochen Luo,Whitney R Ringwald,Aidan G C Wright\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The science-practice gap is a barrier to evidence-based health care. We sought to examine the match between the kinds of studies done by clinical psychology researchers and the kinds of evidence practicing clinicians find useful. We reviewed the prevalence of research questions on how people differ from one another (between-person) and how people differ from their own averages across time (within-person) in six high-impact clinical psychology journals and compared results with a survey of 164 practicing clinicians who rated the importance of between- and within-person questions for their work. Whereas researchers focus mostly on between-person questions, clinicians are at least-and in some cases more-interested in within-person questions. This could pose a challenge for science-practice integration as the clinical community may feel as though the research evidence being produced is not as relevant as it could be, and the scientific community in turn might feel as though practice in the clinical community is not sufficiently evidence based. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Psychologist\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001538\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001538","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
科学与实践之间的差距是循证卫生保健的障碍。我们试图检查临床心理学研究人员所做的各种研究与临床医生认为有用的证据之间的匹配。我们回顾了六个高影响力临床心理学期刊中关于人们如何彼此不同(人与人之间)以及人们如何在不同时间内与自己的平均水平不同(人与人之间)的研究问题的流行情况,并将结果与164名执业临床医生的调查结果进行了比较,他们对人与人之间和人与人之间的问题对他们工作的重要性进行了评估。研究人员主要关注的是人与人之间的问题,而临床医生至少——在某些情况下——对人与人之间的问题更感兴趣。这可能会对科学与实践的整合构成挑战,因为临床界可能会觉得正在产生的研究证据并不像它可能的那样相关,而科学界反过来可能会觉得临床界的实践没有充分的证据基础。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
Is psychological research producing the kind of knowledge clinicians find useful?
The science-practice gap is a barrier to evidence-based health care. We sought to examine the match between the kinds of studies done by clinical psychology researchers and the kinds of evidence practicing clinicians find useful. We reviewed the prevalence of research questions on how people differ from one another (between-person) and how people differ from their own averages across time (within-person) in six high-impact clinical psychology journals and compared results with a survey of 164 practicing clinicians who rated the importance of between- and within-person questions for their work. Whereas researchers focus mostly on between-person questions, clinicians are at least-and in some cases more-interested in within-person questions. This could pose a challenge for science-practice integration as the clinical community may feel as though the research evidence being produced is not as relevant as it could be, and the scientific community in turn might feel as though practice in the clinical community is not sufficiently evidence based. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.