Search results

Research and experience show that evidence-based practice (EBP), i.e. using the best available knowledge in daily professional work, is difficult to achieve in social services. The purpose of this study is to understand the development of organizational EBP learning processes in daily work through workplace education for staff and managers of supported homes for people with cognitive disabilities. The authors examine how the EBP model and new knowledge are understood and made actionable in the workplace, applying theories of organizational learning.

The authors used empirical material collected from an EBP workplace education pilot in Sweden, as well as documents on national EBP implementation in Swedish social services. Before the pilot, a focus group interview was conducted with regional senior managers. Participating managers and staff were individually interviewed two to three years after the pilot.

The study illustrates how knowledge-based action emerged from education where EBP was interpreted, understood, reflected on, and tested, supported by codified EBP tools in the work context. The participants, when supervised, and when observing and questioning their own behaviors in practice, contributed to double-loop learning (DLL) processes. Codification of EBP knowledge into useful tools and socialization processes during education and workplace meetings was crucial in developing individual and group DLL and knowledge-based actions.

The bottom-up approach to EBP development and the adaptive contextual learning at the workplace gave new insights into organizational learning in social service workplaces.

While known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies.

The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions.

This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams.

There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.

There is growing interest around the world in more effectively linking public payments to the provision of public goods from agriculture. However, published evidence syntheses suggest mixed, weak or uncertain evidence for many agri-environment scheme options. To inform any future “public money for public goods” based policy, further synthesis work is needed to assess the evidence-base for the full range of interventions currently funded under agri-environment schemes. Further empirical research and trials should then focus on interventions for which there is mixed or limited evidence. Furthermore, to ensure the data collected is comparable and can be synthesised effectively, it is necessary to reach agreement on essential variables and methods that can be prioritised by those conducting research and monitoring. Future policy could then prioritise public money for the public goods that can most reliably be delivered, offering better value for taxpayers and improving the provision of ecosystem services from agricultural landscapes.

Mental health is an emerging health policy priority globally. The emphasis on closing the treatment gap in psychiatric services is now being complemented by an increasing focus on prevention and health promotion. The purpose of this paper is to describe the programmes and delivery of public mental health in England led by Public Health England (PHE), an arms-length body of the Department of Health and Social Care.

This technical paper outlines the general approach PHE has taken in delivering national work in public mental health and describes several key areas of work: children and young people, suicide prevention, workplace and workforce, strategic engagement with stakeholders, data and information and evidence synthesis.

A description of the various programmes and guidance documents that PHE have produced are described and referenced, which form a substantial body of work in public mental health.

The outputs from PHE may assist in informing the approach to public mental health that other government agencies could consider adopting. The resources described and signposted within this technical paper are publicly available for readers.

England is one of a small group of countries that have a track record in delivering public mental health at a national level. This paper gives a unique and detailed insight into this work.