Evidence-Based Psychotherapy Means Evidence-Informed, Not Evidence-Driven

Do Social Service Interventions for Human Trafficking Survivors Work? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Human trafficking leaves victims with long-term social, psychological, and health effects. Research in this area is still nascent, and there are limited studies that show the effectiveness of existing services for survivors. This study fills the gaps in knowledge of the effectiveness of existing programs through a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Inclusion and exclusion criteria retained 15 studies using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses method, containing 16 populations. Included studies examined programs and/or interventions providing direct services to human trafficking survivors using quantitative pre- and post-intervention measurements published from January 2010 to June 2022. Outcomes among survivors were grouped into five categories: (a) mental health, (b) physical health, (c) social support or social behavior, (d) personal development, and (e) other. Roughly half (n = 31, 51.66%) of the outcomes across the 15 studies were statistically significant. Most measured constructs showed a moderate effect size (E.S.; n = 31, 51.67%). In all, 21 constructs (27.91%) met high E.S. levels, and eight (13.33%) met the criteria for a low-level effect. Analyzing different intervention types, physical-based interventions represented the smallest subset and the largest mean effect size (n = 5, g = 1.632, 95% CI [0.608, 2.655]) followed by standardized therapy (n = 23, g = 1.111, 95% CI [0.624, 1.599]), wrap-around services (n = 14, g = 0.594, 95% CI [0.241, 0.947]), and peer and support group modalities (n = 18, g = 0.440, 95% CI [0.310, 0.571]). A meta-regression showed that non-U.S.-based interventions were significantly more effective than U.S.-based interventions (z = -2.25, p = 0.025). While only 15 studies contributed to this analysis, the current study ushered in new avenues regarding future research, policies, and practice in services for survivors of human trafficking.

Evidence-Based Treatment in Practice: PCIT Research on Addressing Individual Differences and Diversity Through the Lens of 20 Years of Service

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an intensive parent support program for caregivers and their children who exhibit difficult-to-manage disruptive behaviors. After more than four decades of research supporting its efficacy for reducing children's disruptive behaviors and improving parent-child relationships, PCIT has become one of the most popular and widely disseminated parenting support programs in the world. The evidence for the efficacy of PCIT can be found in many reviews of randomized clinical trials and other rigorous studies. To add to those reviews, our aim was to provide practical guidance on how PCIT can be part of an evidence-based program for families that depends on practitioner expertise, as well as attention to families' diverse needs. To do this, we describe the evolution of PCIT as practiced in a university-community partnership that has continued for over 20 years, alongside a narrative description of selected and recent findings on PCIT and its use in specific client presentations across four themes. These themes include studies of 1) whether the standard manualized form of PCIT is efficacious across a selection of diverse family situations and child diagnoses, 2) the mechanisms of change that explain why some parents and some children might benefit more or less from PCIT, 3) whether treatment content modifications make PCIT more feasible to implement or acceptable to some families, at the same time as achieving the same or better outcomes, and 4) whether PCIT with structural modifications to the delivery, such as online or intensive delivery, yields similar outcomes as standard PCIT. Finally, we discuss how these directions in research have influenced research and practice, and end with a summary of how the growing attention on parent and child emotion regulation and parents' responses to (and coaching of) their children's emotions has become important to PCIT theory and our practice.

What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based Practice

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

The updated Joanna Briggs Institute Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare

BACKGROUND

The Joanna Briggs Institute Model for Evidence-Based Healthcare was first conceptualized in 2005. This developmental framework for evidence-based practice situated healthcare evidence, in its broadest sense, and its role and use within complex healthcare settings. The Model was recently reviewed with a view to understanding its utility by health professionals, researchers and policy makers, and the analysis revealed a need to reconsider the composition and language of the Model to ensure its currency on the international stage.

MAIN BODY

The current article proposes a revised Joanna Briggs Institute Model for consideration by the international community. It seeks to clarify the conceptual integration of evidence generation, synthesis, transfer and implementation, linking how these occur with the necessarily challenging dynamics that contribute to whether translation of evidence into policy and practice is successful. It also accounts for the role of different types of evidence, both research and text and opinion, and how evidence contributes to achieving improved health outcomes globally. In addition, it is centered on the importance of accounting for evidence of feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness and effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The Model has been an important part of the Institute's development, both from a scientific and organizational perspective. Given the changing international discourse relating to evidence and its translation into policy and practice over the course of the last decade, it was opportune to revisit the Model and assess its ongoing applicability in its current form. Some alterations have been made for consideration in the hope that the Model reflects the Institute's current conceptualization of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) and to increase its relevance and use pragmatically.

Why Ineffective Psychotherapies Appear to Work: A Taxonomy of Causes of Spurious Therapeutic Effectiveness

The past 40 years have generated numerous insights regarding errors in human reasoning. Arguably, clinical practice is the domain of applied psychology in which acknowledging and mitigating these errors is most crucial. We address one such set of errors here, namely, the tendency of some psychologists and other mental health professionals to assume that they can rely on informal clinical observations to infer whether treatments are effective. We delineate four broad, underlying cognitive impediments to accurately evaluating improvement in psychotherapy-naive realism, confirmation bias, illusory causation, and the illusion of control. We then describe 26 causes of spurious therapeutic effectiveness (CSTEs), organized into a taxonomy of three overarching categories: (a) the perception of client change in its actual absence, (b) misinterpretations of actual client change stemming from extratherapeutic factors, and (c) misinterpretations of actual client change stemming from nonspecific treatment factors. These inferential errors can lead clinicians, clients, and researchers to misperceive useless or even harmful psychotherapies as effective. We (a) examine how methodological safeguards help to control for different CSTEs, (b) delineate fruitful directions for research on CSTEs, and (c) consider the implications of CSTEs for everyday clinical practice. An enhanced appreciation of the inferential problems posed by CSTEs may narrow the science-practice gap and foster a heightened appreciation of the need for the methodological safeguards afforded by evidence-based practice.

Core competencies in social constructionist supervision?

Family therapy is moving increasingly toward evidence-based practice and competency-based training. This article explores what might seem to be an unlikely link between social constructionist supervision, which is based on dialogic and fluid processes of meaning-making, and the increasing reliance on discrete core competencies in the education and training of family therapists. We propose an alternate approach to competencies for supervision with therapists in training that, among other things, invites accountability and provides evaluative props. The approach we propose is based on a set of orientations that we hope reflect the dialogic and contextual nature of social constructionist practice and supervision. These orientations consist of reflexivity and attention to power, fostering polyphony and generativity, collaborative stance, and focus on client resourcefulness. Ideas and questions for supervisors and therapists in training to address the orientations are articulated.

Braking the bandwagon: scrutinizing the science and politics of empirically supported therapies

Proponents of empirically supported therapies (ESTs) argue that because manualized ESTs have demonstrated efficacy in treating a range of psychological disorders, they should be the treatments of choice. In this article, the author uses a hypothetical treatment for obesity to highlight numerous flaws in EST logic and argues for common factors as a more clinically relevant but empirically challenging approach. The author then explores how political variables may be contributing to the expansion of EST and the resulting restriction of practitioner autonomy. Last, the author argues that EST is best viewed as 1 component of a more comprehensive evidence-based practice framework. The author concludes with some cautionary statements about the perils of equating the EST paradigm with the scientist-practitioner ideal.

Conversational evidence in therapeutic dialogue

Family therapists' participation in therapeutic dialogue with clients is typically informed by evidence of how such dialogue is developing. In this article, we propose that conversational evidence, the kind that can be empirically analyzed using discourse analyses, be considered a contribution to widening psychotherapy's evidence base. After some preliminaries about what we mean by conversational evidence, we provide a genealogy of evaluative practice in psychotherapy, and examine qualitative evaluation methods for their theoretical compatibilities with social constructionist approaches to family therapy. We then move on to examine the notion of accomplishment in therapeutic dialogue given how such accomplishments can be evaluated using conversation analysis. We conclude by considering a number of research and pedagogical implications we associate with conversational evidence.