Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The pursuit of evidence-based practice - a comparison of three guidelines on psychosocial interventions for alcohol problems
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Work.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Work.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Work.
2014 (Swedish)In: Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, ISSN 1455-0725, E-ISSN 1458-6126, Vol. 31, no 3, p. 271-288Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aims

In this article we scrutinise three prominent guidelines on psychosocial interventions for alcohol problems. We pay special attention to how congruent the guidelines are in terms of the interventions recommended, and the processes used in order to identify and rank the “evidence” underpinning these recommendations.

Data

The analysed guidelines are: 1) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Substance Use Disorders, American Psychiatric Association (2006); 2) Alcohol-Use Disorders. The NICE Guideline on Diagnosis, Assessment and Management of Harmful Drinking and Alcohol Dependence (2011), National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, UK; 3) Guidelines for the Treatment of Alcohol Problems, Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing (2009). The purpose is not to review the three guidelines as such, but to study them as an example of the production of evidence. All report to be based on “best available evidence”, so the guidelines were compared both regarding the actual recommendations and the guideline production procedures and differences in these procedures with related consequences.

Results & CONCLUSIONS

Prestigious organisations in different national contexts have reached divergent conclusions about evidence-based practice and the quality of the scientific studies underpinning these conclusions. Differences in the guidelines regarding interpretations, limitations and grading illustrate the difficulties with the dilemmas of sensitivity (to include factors that are significant for how a psychological intervention is to be judged) and specificity (that irrelevant studies are cleared off) in the recommendations presented.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 31, no 3, p. 271-288
Keyword [en]
national guidelines, alcohol, evidence, production of evidence
National Category
Social Work
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-98469DOI: 10.2478/nsad-2014-0022OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-98469DiVA, id: diva2:684007
Available from: 2014-01-07 Created: 2014-01-07 Last updated: 2018-03-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bergmark, AndersSkogens, Lisavon Greiff, Ninive
By organisation
Department of Social Work
In the same journal
Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
Social Work

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 318 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf