Search results

A translation framework and associated processes and activities for bridging the research-to-practice gap in early childhood intervention are described. Translational processes and activities include methods and procedures for identifying evidence-based practices, translating findings from research evidence into early childhood intervention procedures, and promoting practitioners’ and parents’ routine use of the practices. The framework includes four interrelated processes and activities. Type 1 translation uses research findings to develop evidence-based practices. Type 2 translation involves the use of evidence-based professional development (implementation) practices to promote practitioners’ and parents’ use of evidence-based early childhood intervention practices. Type 3 translation includes activities to evaluate whether the use of evidence-based practices as part of routine early intervention have expected benefits and outcomes. Type 4 translation includes activities for the dissemination, diffusion, and promotion of broad-based adoption and use of evidence-based practices. Examples of each type of translation are described as are implications for practice.

The point of departure for this viewpoint paper is the current development in which landscape architects are working towards achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals and the associated cross-cutting pledge “Leave No One Behind”. The sustainable development goals 3 and 11 can be achieved through landscape projects that are inclusive and health promoting, and the authors argue that an evidence-based design process is needed to ensure that project designs deliver what they promise. However, most landscape architects are not trained in evidence-based design and are therefore unsure of what can be used as evidence. A further challenge is the lack of relevant and applicable research evidence for design processes.

The authors present a process model for evidence-based health design in landscape architecture as an overall framework on which the authors base their arguments. The model includes four topics of evidence: target group, human health, environment and use of nature. For each topic, the authors present their view on what may be considered as evidence and where it can be found or generated. The study view is supported by a detailed presentation of where and how evidence was found and generated in a design project for an accessible and health-promoting forest trail for people with mobility disabilities.

The authors suggest a broad definition of evidence, and that the design process should draw on evidence from relevant research and practice disciplines. Evidence can be found in multiple sources, for example, scientific articles, theoretical works and design guidelines. It can also be generated by landscape architects themselves, for example, through landscape analyses and stakeholder workshops. The evidence should guide and support the landscape architect and not dictate the design process.

The authors hope that the knowledge provided on the evidence-based health design process and on where to collect or how to generate evidence may inspire landscape architects in their future health design projects.

People with mobility disabilities face many health challenges and should potentially be able to benefit from visiting green spaces. The authors hope that the knowledge provided on the evidence-based health design process and on where to collect or how to generate evidence may inspire landscape architects in their future health design projects.

The purpose of this article is to explore the understanding and interpretation of evidence‐based practice among Sure Start centre managers.

Semi‐structured interviews were carried out with Children's Centre managers from one London borough.

The interviews highlighted the varied and, for some limited, view of evidence‐based practice. For many managers their understanding was confined to evidence generated locally rather than perceiving a role for externally‐generated evidence to support effective practice. Managers also highlighted the constraints they face in taking what some perceive to be an evidence‐based approach.

Although Sure Start Children's Centres are one of the main sites for delivering evidence‐based interventions to improve outcomes for young children and families in the UK, and despite Government announcements promoting the use of evidence‐based practice in these settings, little is known about the knowledge and interpretation of managers on this issue or the difficulties of translating ideas into practice on the ground. Thus, there is a danger that some of the potential benefits of evidence‐based practice may be lost if this disconnect between policy and practice is not addressed.

This conceptual paper aims to propose the evidence-based benchmarking model that bridges standard benchmarking practices with evidence-based management (EBMgt) principles and lessens tensions between two opposite views of benchmarking as a useful management tool vs a management hype and fashion.

This conceptual paper is based on the critical reasoning, analysis and integration of so far largely separated research fields of benchmarking and EBMgt. The author employs a method of conceptual model building to identify connections between standard benchmarking model and EBMgt practices and to explain how a sequence of benchmarking events supplemented by EBMgt principles might lead to more reliable managerial decision-making.

The author argues that although there are no common benchmarking procedures, it is possible to identify a standard benchmarking model that resonates in most contemporary benchmarking procedures and consists of four main phases: plan, do, check and act (PDCA). The author integrated this standard model with EBMgt practices of searching for evidence in four sources of information and a six-step critical thinking process to put forward the model of evidence-based benchmarking.

The proposed model is a novel, comprehensive framework that puts together so far incompatible practices of benchmarking and EBMgt. The model clears up existing conceptual confusions around “casual” benchmarking and advances contemporary understanding of benchmarking practices. The model of evidence-based benchmarking might act as a practical, heuristic tool improving the quality of the managerial decisions and thus positively influencing the bottom line of business performance.

This chapter reviews the intervention research literature – particularly interventions deemed evidence-based – for students with intellectual disability across academic and life-skills instruction. Although the focus of this chapter is the spectrum of students covered under the term “intellectual disability,” the majority of research on evidence-based interventions for students with intellectual disability focus on students with more moderate and severe intellectual disability, rather than students with mild intellectual disability. The majority of the interventions determined to be evidence-based within the literature for students with intellectual disability – across both academic and life skills – tend to be those that fall within the purview of systematic instruction.

The emergence of evidence‐based medicine has implications for the use and development of information retrieval systems which are not restricted to the area of medicine. ‘Evidence‐based’ practice emphasises the retrieval and application of high quality knowledge in order to solve real‐world problems. However, information seeking to support such evidence‐based approaches to decision making and problem solving makes demands on retrieval systems which they are not well suited at present to satisfy. A number of approaches have been developed in the field of medicine that seek to address these limitations. The extent to which such approaches may be applied to other areas is discussed, as are their limitations.

Hospital manager decisions can have a significant impact on service effectiveness and hospital success, so using an evidence-based approach can improve hospital management. The purpose of this paper is to identify evidence-based management (EBMgt) components and challenges. Consequently, the authors provide an improving evidence-based decision-making framework.

A total of 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2016. The authors also established three focus group discussions with health service managers. Data analysis followed deductive qualitative analysis guidelines.

Four basic themes emerged from the interviews, including EBMgt evidence sources (including sub-themes: scientific and research evidence, facts and information, political-social development plans, managers’ professional expertise and ethical-moral evidence); predictors (sub-themes: stakeholder values and expectations, functional behavior, knowledge, key competencies and skill, evidence sources, evidence levels, uses and benefits and government programs); EBMgt barriers (sub-themes: managers’ personal characteristics, decision-making environment, training and research system and organizational issues); and evidence-based hospital management processes (sub-themes: asking, acquiring, appraising, aggregating, applying and assessing).

Findings suggest that most participants have positive EBMgt attitudes. A full evidence-based hospital manager is a person who uses all evidence sources in a six-step decision-making process. EBMgt frameworks are a good tool to manage healthcare organizations. The authors found factors affecting hospital EBMgt and identified six evidence sources that healthcare managers can use in evidence-based decision-making processes.

The purpose of this paper is to outline increased use of evidence‐based research strategies in the applied social sciences.

The paper documents an ideal procedure for researchers to follow. It also provides resources from which to find evidence.

Evidence‐based practice is emerging as an influential field within academic and professional applied social science fields; as such, reference librarians across various library types should become familiar with the search strategies and tools their users need in order to be successful evidence‐based practice researchers

The Campbell Collaboration's motto, “What helps? What harms? Based on what evidence?” neatly sums up the field of evidence‐based practice research

This article examines the history of social work research within the UK from a perspective of evidence‐based practice, as originally advocated in the 1990s. It reviews the progress made to date in relation to the use of experimental studies in the field of children and families, and the reasons why this remains limited. It sets this in the broader context of evidence‐based practice and the education and training of qualifying and post‐qualifying social workers, including postgraduate training.

Important shifts in policy and practice, the shift to woman‐centred services, the recognition that midwives should be lead clinician in a number of cases, and the idea of effective care, are leading to fundamental change in the maternity services. For many years, midwives have shown interest in the idea of evidence‐based or effective care. There are a number of good reasons for the interest in evidence‐based care. However, unless the political reality of the difficulties of the change are faced, the changes will remain rhetorical, virtual rather than real. Midwifery holds the potential for using evidence in practice, and for improving health outcomes for mothers and babies. If the status quo is not challenged, an important opportunity will have been missed.