Search

Global Mental Health has developed interventions that strive to work across great difference-variously conceptualized as cultural, socio-economic, geographic, or pertaining to the characteristics of health systems. This article discusses how the evaluation framework Theory of Change (ToC) facilitates the production of 'global' knowledge across such differences. Drawing on 14 months of multi-sited fieldwork among Global Mental Health actors in Europe, North America and South Africa, it traces the differential use of ToC in GMH interventions. While much critical scholarship of Global Health metrics holds that techniques of quantification rely on universals that necessarily betray the "real world", ToC unsettles these critiques. It comes into view as an epistemic and relational device that produces 'contingent universals'-concepts that are true and measurable until they stop working in the field, or until the parameters of 'what works' shift to a new iteration. As such, Theory of Change produces actionable-rather than true-knowledge attuned to open-ended change, both desirable (impact) and unforeseen (adaptation). Its effects, however, are ambiguous. ToC presents us with a horizoning technique that enables what I call "virtuous failure" within the evidence-based paradigm. It may equally harbor the potential to disrupt distinctions such as bricolage (tinkering) and design (planning) and their respective politics, as it may tie neatly into audit cultures, depending on its use. The article analyzes the novel stakes of reflexive evaluation techniques and calls on anthropology and critical Global Health for renewed empirical engagement.

This literature review critically examines the concept of 'evidence-based practice' (EBP) in education, particularly its implementation in England. EBP, which advocates using scientific research to inform teaching, enjoys widespread support from policymakers and educators. However, concerns exist regarding its emphasis on quantitative evidence, particularly findings from laboratory experiments and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Critics argue that this approach can reduce teacher autonomy and struggles to adapt to diverse educational contexts. By analysing a broad range of literature, this review explores the current 'what works' approach within EBP and highlights its challenges, such as neglecting qualitative data and the complexities of real-world classrooms. The review concludes by advocating for a more balanced approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative research methods, while fostering collaboration between researchers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers why and how evidence-based practice has become distorted in practice, and what to do about it. We present qualitative data from an action research project in policing to highlight tensions between the rhetoric and reality of evidence-based practice, and the ways in which evidence-based practice's seductive catchphrase 'what works' is being understood and applied. Through the lens of care ethics, we integrate 'what matters' with 'what works', and 'what matters/works here ' with 'what matters/works everywhere'. This approach recognizes relational expertise, practical reasoning and critical inquiry as vital for evidence-based practice in practices of social intervention. Drawing on key care ethics motifs, we suggest that care is the ethical scaffolding upon which social justice relies, and hence crucial to organs of security, peacekeeping and law enforcement. From this position, we argue that policing might renegotiate its difficult relationship with the particular, recasting it from something uncomfortably discretionary (the maverick cop) and shameful (an individualized blame culture) into something that underpins and enhances police professionalism. While developed in a policing context, these reflections have a broader relevance for questions of professional legitimacy and credibility, especially within the 'new professions', and the costs of privileging any one type of understanding over others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence-based practice (EBP) advocates that treatments offered to patients should be empirically supported and effective. Group-based treatment is offered in forensic mental health services as a way of assisting forensic patients (FPs) to address their offending behavior. However, little research exists examining how research and practice are integrated in these interventions, consistent with the principles of EBP. This study examined the utilization and evaluation of offense-specific group treatment programs with FPs, with a specific focus on interventions for substance misuse, sexual offending, firesetting, and violent offending. The results highlight that despite frequent use of offense-specific group interventions for FPs in UK forensic mental health services, evaluation is lacking regarding both published evaluations and through routine clinical practice. To ensure consistency with principles of EBP, recommendations are made surrounding the implementation of routine evaluations (e.g., follow-up studies) of offense-specific group treatment programs with FPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) in the UK's College of Policing has a key role in promoting the use of research in policing. Since 2014, the WWCCR has aimed to review – and make accessible – research to better inform and target crime reduction and to build police capacity to identify, evaluate and apply research evidence to practice. This comes amidst significant changes to entry requirements for policing in the UK as part of efforts to further professionalise the service and prepare for future challenges in policing. We report findings from in-depth interviews with senior police officers from forces across England and Wales, conducted as part of a three-year evaluation of the WWCCR. These interviews explored the traction of 'evidence-based practice' among senior officers and showed shifts over time in their accounts of the value placed on research and how it is promoted and used within their force. Additionally, an online survey across policing ranks, conducted in 2016, found differences by seniority in perceptions about the relevance of research for policing, and the level of organisational support for it. Findings are used to consider the status of research evidence in policing and its development within a policing profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the English government’s vision for how research is proposed to lead to improvements in the system in the context of a school-led, self-improving system and rapid and sweeping legislative reforms. The debate about the role of research in the teaching profession has been sharpened by a large consultation effort in the academic community. The BERA-RSA inquiry suggests an empowering vision for teachers where research engagement informs practice and a role for schools in providing a ‘research-rich environment’. However, the government’s proposals offer a rather less empowering vision. The author of the paper contrasts a version of research-informed teaching and leadership with one where teachers are supposed to follow and be led by the evidence. The government’s education policy, especially as set out in the 2016 White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’ is analysed in relation to this position. Analysis of statements from the document are shown in the paper, and contextualised with examples from the English school system. The extent to which teacher agency is promoted through research evidence is explored. The article concludes that the government’s over emphasis on a ‘what works’/‘evidence-based practice’ model is unhelpful in achieving an improved education system. Suggestions for the role of universities and the College of Teaching in promoting research-informed practice are given. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose – The evidence base for what works with forensic patients in high-security inpatient settings has typically focused on outcome research and not included clinical expertise from practice-based experience, which is an important facet of evidence-based practice. The purpose of this paper is to establish whether experts with clinical and/or research experience in this setting could reach consensus on elements of high-security hospital services that would be essential to the rehabilitation of forensic patients. Design/methodology/approach – A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to achieve this aim. Experts were invited to rate agreement with elements of practice and interventions derived from existing research evidence and patient perspectives on what worked. Experts were also invited to propose elements of hospital treatment based on their individual knowledge and experience. Findings – In the first round 54 experts reached consensus on 27 (out of 39) elements that included physical (e.g. use of CCTV), procedural (e.g. managing restricted items) and relational practices (e.g. promoting therapeutic alliances), and to a lesser extent-specific medical, psychological and social interventions. In total, 16 additional elements were also proposed by experts. In round 2 experts (n=45) were unable to reach a consensus on how essential each of the described practices were. In round 3 (n=35), where group consensus feedback from round 2 was provided, consensus was still not reached. Research limitations/implications – Patient case complexity, interventions with overlapping outcomes and a chequered evidence base history for this population are offered as explanations for this finding alongside limitations with the Delphi method. Practical implications – Based on the consensus for essential elements derived from research evidence and patient experience, high-secure hospital services might consider those practices and interventions that experts agreed were therapeutic options for reducing risk of offending, improving interpersonal skills and therapeutic interactions with patients, and mental health restoration. Originality/value – The study triangulates what works research evidence from this type of forensic setting and is the first to use a Delphi survey in an attempt to collate this information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal social programs are rarely evaluated to determine whether they are actually accomplishing their intended purposes. As part of its obligation to spend taxpayers’ dollars wisely, Congress should mandate that experimental evaluations of every federal social program be conducted. The evaluations should be large-scale, multisite studies to guard against mistakenly assuming that a program that works in one location or with one population will automatically work in other situations. Congress should place substantially less emphasis on funding evaluations based on less rigorous types of research designs, because their conclusions are much less reliable. Finally, Congress should exercise strict oversight to ensure that the evaluations are conducted and the results reported in a timely manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea that professional practices such as education should be based upon or at least be informed by evidence continues to capture the imagination of many politicians, policy makers, practitioners and researchers. There is growing evidence of the influence of this line of thought. At the same time there is a growing body of work that has raised fundamental questions about the feasibility of the idea of evidence-based or evidence-informed practice. In this paper I make a further contribution to this discussion through an analysis of a number of assumptions that inform the discussion. I focus on the epistemological, ontological and praxeological dimensions of the discussion and in each domain identify a deficit. In the epistemological domain there is a knowledge deficit, in the ontological domain an effectiveness or efficacy deficit and in the practice domain an application deficit. Taken together these deficits not only raise some important questions about the very idea of evidence-based practice but also highlight the role of normativity, power and values. Against this background I outline the case for the idea of value-based education as an alternative for evidence-based education. As I am generally concerned about the expectations policy makers hold about what evidence can and should achieve in professional practices such as education, my contribution is primarily meant to provide educators and other professionals with arguments that can help them to resist unwarranted expectations about the role of evidence in their practices and even more so of unwarranted interventions in their practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the evidence that has been produced on the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions (What Works), and in particular cognitive-behavioural programmes, with adult offenders in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in England and Wales. It summarizes evidence available in the period 2000-2004 and reviews developments since 2004. These include newly published evidence, critiques of and alternatives to an emphasis on programmes. It concludes that the evidence base has developed more slowly than was hoped and expected but that we have still some promising leads. A redirection of the research effort is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation of the What Works agenda within probation has brought about the development and delivery of a suite of accredited programmes in relation to work with offenders. The accreditation criteria emphasize the evidence-based nature of these interventions and outline a number of key principles. An integral tenet of this approach has been 'relevance to offenders' learning style'. While most of the other aspects have been explored in research studies and publications, this element has tended to become a 'given' and while mentioned, has not been subjected to a similar level of critique. The recent publication of an evaluation of learning styles by the Learning and Skills Research Centre has provided an important overview and appraisal of this area, which is relevant to probation practice. This article draws together these various strands by outlining the changing situation in probation, reviewing the findings concerning learning styles and then developing an analysis of the wider implications for probation policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]