Practitioners’ Views and Use of Evidence-based Treatment: Positive Attitudes but Missed Opportunities in Children’s Services
Author(s)
Thomas, Rae
Zimmer-Gembeck, Melanie J
Chaffin, Mark
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2014
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The extent evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are used in clinical practice within the Australian therapeutic child welfare sector is unknown. In this study, we investigated practitioners' knowledge, attitudes, and use of EBT when providing interventions to children and families and how the intended outcomes of interventions are evaluated. Practitioners (N = 112) from 41 non-government organizations were surveyed and reported few barriers to implementing EBTs and positive attitudes. While just over half the practitioners surveyed provided an accurate definition of EBT, 72 % of practitioners reported using EBTs in their clinical ...
View more >The extent evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are used in clinical practice within the Australian therapeutic child welfare sector is unknown. In this study, we investigated practitioners' knowledge, attitudes, and use of EBT when providing interventions to children and families and how the intended outcomes of interventions are evaluated. Practitioners (N = 112) from 41 non-government organizations were surveyed and reported few barriers to implementing EBTs and positive attitudes. While just over half the practitioners surveyed provided an accurate definition of EBT, 72 % of practitioners reported using EBTs in their clinical practice. Of those, 88 % reported modifying the EBT, however interventions were rarely evaluated systematically. Implications for the use of EBTs, how they are modified, and the role of systematic evaluation are discussed.
View less >
View more >The extent evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are used in clinical practice within the Australian therapeutic child welfare sector is unknown. In this study, we investigated practitioners' knowledge, attitudes, and use of EBT when providing interventions to children and families and how the intended outcomes of interventions are evaluated. Practitioners (N = 112) from 41 non-government organizations were surveyed and reported few barriers to implementing EBTs and positive attitudes. While just over half the practitioners surveyed provided an accurate definition of EBT, 72 % of practitioners reported using EBTs in their clinical practice. Of those, 88 % reported modifying the EBT, however interventions were rarely evaluated systematically. Implications for the use of EBTs, how they are modified, and the role of systematic evaluation are discussed.
View less >
Journal Title
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Volume
41
Issue
3
Subject
Clinical sciences
Community child health