Views and attitudes towards evidence-based practice in a Dutch social work organization

R.J.M. van der Zwet*, D.M. Beneken genaamd Kolmer, R. Schalk, T. Van Regenmortel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose:
This case study explores the views and attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) of social workers and staff working in a social work organization in the Netherlands that recently committed to EBP.

Method:
Qualitative data were gathered from semi-structured interviews with 10 staff members and 12 social workers.

Results:
Confusion about the meaning of EBP was a major theme among both social workers and staff and EBP was conceptualized in several different ways. Some respondents perceived EBP as using interventions for which there is scientific evidence that it is effective, i.e. Research-Supported Treatments (RSTs), other’s used a broader conceptualization that, besides scientific evidence, also takes into account professional expertise and/or client circumstances (EBP process). A strong preference for the EBP process as opposed to RSTs was another major theme among both social workers and staff.

Conclusion:
The results suggest that organizations preparing for EBP implementation will need to increase both staff’s and social workers’ understanding of EBP by providing a clear explanation of the difference between RSTs and the EBP process.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)245-260
Journal Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work
Volume16
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

work organization
evidence
social worker
staff
qualitative method
expertise
Netherlands

Cite this

@article{6b0cff5f0f6b43979c295403bb319a3d,
title = "Views and attitudes towards evidence-based practice in a Dutch social work organization",
abstract = "Purpose: This case study explores the views and attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) of social workers and staff working in a social work organization in the Netherlands that recently committed to EBP.Method: Qualitative data were gathered from semi-structured interviews with 10 staff members and 12 social workers.Results: Confusion about the meaning of EBP was a major theme among both social workers and staff and EBP was conceptualized in several different ways. Some respondents perceived EBP as using interventions for which there is scientific evidence that it is effective, i.e. Research-Supported Treatments (RSTs), other’s used a broader conceptualization that, besides scientific evidence, also takes into account professional expertise and/or client circumstances (EBP process). A strong preference for the EBP process as opposed to RSTs was another major theme among both social workers and staff.Conclusion: The results suggest that organizations preparing for EBP implementation will need to increase both staff’s and social workers’ understanding of EBP by providing a clear explanation of the difference between RSTs and the EBP process.",
author = "{van der Zwet}, R.J.M. and {Beneken genaamd Kolmer}, D.M. and R. Schalk and {Van Regenmortel}, T.",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/23761407.2019.1584071",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "245--260",
journal = "Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work",
issn = "1543-3722",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

Views and attitudes towards evidence-based practice in a Dutch social work organization. / van der Zwet, R.J.M.; Beneken genaamd Kolmer, D.M.; Schalk, R.; Van Regenmortel, T.

In: Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2019, p. 245-260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Views and attitudes towards evidence-based practice in a Dutch social work organization

AU - van der Zwet, R.J.M.

AU - Beneken genaamd Kolmer, D.M.

AU - Schalk, R.

AU - Van Regenmortel, T.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Purpose: This case study explores the views and attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) of social workers and staff working in a social work organization in the Netherlands that recently committed to EBP.Method: Qualitative data were gathered from semi-structured interviews with 10 staff members and 12 social workers.Results: Confusion about the meaning of EBP was a major theme among both social workers and staff and EBP was conceptualized in several different ways. Some respondents perceived EBP as using interventions for which there is scientific evidence that it is effective, i.e. Research-Supported Treatments (RSTs), other’s used a broader conceptualization that, besides scientific evidence, also takes into account professional expertise and/or client circumstances (EBP process). A strong preference for the EBP process as opposed to RSTs was another major theme among both social workers and staff.Conclusion: The results suggest that organizations preparing for EBP implementation will need to increase both staff’s and social workers’ understanding of EBP by providing a clear explanation of the difference between RSTs and the EBP process.

AB - Purpose: This case study explores the views and attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) of social workers and staff working in a social work organization in the Netherlands that recently committed to EBP.Method: Qualitative data were gathered from semi-structured interviews with 10 staff members and 12 social workers.Results: Confusion about the meaning of EBP was a major theme among both social workers and staff and EBP was conceptualized in several different ways. Some respondents perceived EBP as using interventions for which there is scientific evidence that it is effective, i.e. Research-Supported Treatments (RSTs), other’s used a broader conceptualization that, besides scientific evidence, also takes into account professional expertise and/or client circumstances (EBP process). A strong preference for the EBP process as opposed to RSTs was another major theme among both social workers and staff.Conclusion: The results suggest that organizations preparing for EBP implementation will need to increase both staff’s and social workers’ understanding of EBP by providing a clear explanation of the difference between RSTs and the EBP process.

U2 - 10.1080/23761407.2019.1584071

DO - 10.1080/23761407.2019.1584071

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 245

EP - 260

JO - Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work

JF - Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work

SN - 1543-3722

IS - 3

ER -