基于实践的证据(PBE)和治疗:来自核心系统30年的个人建议

IF 0.2 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
C. Evans
{"title":"基于实践的证据(PBE)和治疗:来自核心系统30年的个人建议","authors":"C. Evans","doi":"10.1080/02109395.2022.2127235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the last 30 years we have seen two models of empirical evidence dominate funding for psychotherapies and for researching the psychotherapies. The first, still the dominant model, ‘Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)’ is based on Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence. More recently, Embedded Change Management (ECM) is the rising pre-paradigm, offering an alternative to EBP. I argue that neither model understands how evidence it is best shared between therapists as both are based on fundamentally flawed epistemologies and ideas of what constitutes pertinent evidence about the psychotherapies. Twenty-eight years ago, I was a co-creator of the CORE (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Exploration) system designed to support Practice-Based Evidence (PBE). I suggest that re-thinking the rather neglected PBE model at the heart of the original CORE system design might help change this situation. However, I recognize that the political models beneath both EBP and ECM create such vested interests within the ‘global North’ that real change will probably have to come from elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":41002,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Psychology-Psikoloji Calismalari Dergisi","volume":"8 1","pages":"455 - 481"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice Based Evidence (PBE) and therapies: personal recommendations from the 30 years of the CORE system (Evidencia basada en la práctica (EBP) y psicoterapias: recomendaciones personales basadas en los 30 años del sistema CORE)\",\"authors\":\"C. Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02109395.2022.2127235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Over the last 30 years we have seen two models of empirical evidence dominate funding for psychotherapies and for researching the psychotherapies. The first, still the dominant model, ‘Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)’ is based on Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence. More recently, Embedded Change Management (ECM) is the rising pre-paradigm, offering an alternative to EBP. I argue that neither model understands how evidence it is best shared between therapists as both are based on fundamentally flawed epistemologies and ideas of what constitutes pertinent evidence about the psychotherapies. Twenty-eight years ago, I was a co-creator of the CORE (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Exploration) system designed to support Practice-Based Evidence (PBE). I suggest that re-thinking the rather neglected PBE model at the heart of the original CORE system design might help change this situation. However, I recognize that the political models beneath both EBP and ECM create such vested interests within the ‘global North’ that real change will probably have to come from elsewhere.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Psychology-Psikoloji Calismalari Dergisi\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"455 - 481\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Psychology-Psikoloji Calismalari Dergisi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2022.2127235\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Psychology-Psikoloji Calismalari Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2022.2127235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的30年里,我们看到两种经验证据模型主导了心理治疗的资助和心理治疗的研究。第一种,也是目前占主导地位的模式,“循证实践(EBP)”是基于随机对照试验(RCT)的证据。最近,嵌入式变更管理(ECM)是正在兴起的前范式,提供了EBP的替代方案。我认为,这两种模式都不理解如何在治疗师之间最好地分享证据,因为它们都是基于根本上有缺陷的认识论和构成心理治疗相关证据的想法。28年前,我是CORE(常规探索临床结果)系统的共同创建者,该系统旨在支持基于实践的证据(PBE)。我建议在原始CORE系统设计的核心重新考虑相当被忽视的PBE模型可能有助于改变这种情况。然而,我认识到EBP和ECM下的政治模式在“全球北方”中创造了这样的既得利益,真正的变化可能必须来自其他地方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Practice Based Evidence (PBE) and therapies: personal recommendations from the 30 years of the CORE system (Evidencia basada en la práctica (EBP) y psicoterapias: recomendaciones personales basadas en los 30 años del sistema CORE)
Abstract Over the last 30 years we have seen two models of empirical evidence dominate funding for psychotherapies and for researching the psychotherapies. The first, still the dominant model, ‘Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)’ is based on Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence. More recently, Embedded Change Management (ECM) is the rising pre-paradigm, offering an alternative to EBP. I argue that neither model understands how evidence it is best shared between therapists as both are based on fundamentally flawed epistemologies and ideas of what constitutes pertinent evidence about the psychotherapies. Twenty-eight years ago, I was a co-creator of the CORE (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Exploration) system designed to support Practice-Based Evidence (PBE). I suggest that re-thinking the rather neglected PBE model at the heart of the original CORE system design might help change this situation. However, I recognize that the political models beneath both EBP and ECM create such vested interests within the ‘global North’ that real change will probably have to come from elsewhere.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信