Practice

157

Families in society: the Journal of contemporary social services ©2012 alliance for children and Families issn: Print 1044-3894; electronic 1945-1350

2012, 93(3), 157–164 Doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4220

http://www.familiesinsociety.org/showabstract.asp?docid=4220

Practitioner Perspectives of Evidence-Based Practice tracy c. Wharton & Kathleen a. Bolland

social work practitioners decide when and how to use evidence in their practice. there remains, however, little evidence

to date about social workers’ perspectives about and implementation of evidence-based practice (eBP). this survey of a

national sample of social workers adds to our knowledge about how social workers locate information, how they deter-

mine the usefulness of the information, what barriers exist for the use of an eBP process, and whether their workplaces

are oriented toward eBP. Findings suggest that barriers may be more complex than previously reported, but that social

workers find evidence, read the professional literature, and consult with peers and mentors, often despite poor workplace

support. suggestions for dissemination of information are made, and a model of evidence use in practice is proposed.

imPliCations For PraCtiCe

• Practitioners generally first consider the proximal

similarity of information and the trustworthiness of the

source before directly translating research into their

clinical practice, thus demonstrating the importance of

clarity and transparency.

s ocial work practitioners determine when and how to use evidence in their practice; so it is practitio- ners who determine whether a new intervention

becomes embedded in practice, no matter how strong the evidence base. Certainly policy and other external pressures may inf luence the choices social workers make, but for interventions to remain viable options, the social workers and their clients must deem them useful and feasible. although top-down pressure may be embedded in the workplace, “individual acceptance of an innovation is proposed to rely on both organi- zational and individual factors” (aarons & sawitzky, 2006, p. 62).

The national institutes of health (nih) has identi- fied critical goals related to understanding “the nature and impact of clinical practice dissemination and im- plementation of social work services and interventions with proven effectiveness” (nih, 2007). additionally, the educational Policy and accreditation standards of the Council on social Work education (CsWe, 2008) make it clear that social work practitioners are expected to be evidence-based practitioners. two competency state- ments highlight this emphasis:

2.1.3: social workers distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including research based knowledge and practice wisdom.

2.1.6: social workers use practice experience to inform research, employ evidence-based interventions, evaluate their own practice, and use research findings to improve practice, policy, and

social service delivery. (Council on social Work education, 2008)

although there is a substantial body of work debating relative merits of evidence-based practice (ebP) and pro- posing models of practice and implementation, there is a surprising gap in direct feedback from the front lines of service—the “swampy lowlands of practice” (Crawford, brown, anthony, & hicks, 2002, p. 289). There is little clarity about what is considered as evidence by social work practitioners, how evidence is being accessed and applied, and what the barriers are to implementation of research-supported best practices (bellamy, bledsoe, & traube, 2006). Proctor (2007) pointed out that, histori- cally, research findings have not been used much in the delivery of services, and that social work education, at least through 2006, has been inadequate to prepare prac- titioners to implement an ebP process in clinical settings. regardless, there has been growing pressure on agencies and practitioners to use empirically supported treatments and to practice in an “evidence-based way,” with a num- ber of state legislatures moving toward requiring a cer- tain level of evidence for all mental health interventions (glisson & schoenwald, 2005; rapp, goscha, & Carlson, 2010; sheehan, Walrath, & holden, 2007).

Defining EBP in Practice

although in its infancy, there is a growing body of re- search on practitioners’ perspectives and practices about ebP (aarons & sawitzky, 2006; Mullen, bledsoe, & bel- lamy, 2008; Manuel, Mullen, fang, bellamy, & bledsoe, 2009; Mullen & bacon, 2004; olsson, 2007; Proctor, 2007; regehr, stern, & shlonsky, 2007). although some have ad- vocated for implementing practices with a strong evidence base (e.g., see glisson & schoenwald, 2005; sheehan et al., 2007), currently the call is for adoption of ebP as a process. grounded in the sackett definition: “The conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in mak- ing decisions about the care of individual patients…inte- grating individual clinical expertise with the best avail-

Families in society | Volume 93, no. 3

158

able external clinical evidence from systematic research” (sackett, rosenberg, gray, haynes, & richardson, 1996, p. 71), ebP is being defined in social work as “a decision- making process integrating best research evidence, practi- tioner expertise, and client or community characteristics, values, and preferences in a manner compatible with the organizational systems and context in which care delivery occurs” (Manuel et al., 2009, p. 614) and as “a process of lifelong learning that involves continually posing specific questions of direct practical importance to clients, search- ing objectively and efficiently for the current best evidence relative to each question, and taking appropriate action guided by evidence” (gibbs, 2003, p. 6). Proctor (2007) de- scribed the process approach required for implementing specific interventions:

evidence must be accessed, and potential ebPs need to be identified; the utility and advantages of ebPs must be accepted, and processes of critical thinking about evidence must be adopted; practices deemed most effective and appropriate need to be implemented with fidelity; and the effectiveness of the practices must be evaluated. (p. 584)

such definitions incorporate the language used by prac- titioners and touch on issues identified in this study as critical to consider, such as context, values, preferences, and efficiency. our study explored the definitions held by participants, in light of descriptions of ongoing efforts to engage practitioners in a process-oriented ebP model: regehr et al. (2007) eloquently noted that a “major chal- lenge includes continued education efforts to reconcile the (process-based) ebP model…with the complexity of popu- lations and issues dealt with by social work practitioners and agencies” (p. 415; emphasis added).

based on an extensive review of english-language lit- erature and a preliminary pilot study of mental health practitioners, this internet-based survey yielded both quantitative and qualitative data. The purpose was to in- crease knowledge about definitions of ebP currently used in social work practice settings, exploring the barriers and benefits to the uptake of an ebP practice model, social workers’ general feelings toward ebP, and the realities of enactment in practice.

a number of studies merit particular note. one (Manuel et al., 2009) investigated the barriers and facilitators to ebP enactment, comparing perceptions of ebP before and af- ter a training intervention at three sites. six studies used surveys with large samples. one investigated attitudes and beliefs about treatment manuals (addis & Krasnow, 2000); one investigated feelings about training and research skills (booth, booth, & falzon, 2003); one looked at views about practice guidelines (gerdes, edmonds, haslam, & Mc- Cartney, 1996); one examined evaluation of practice (Mul- len & bacon, 2004); one explored the relationships among

mental health providers’ opinions about organizational culture and climate and ebP (aarons & sawitzky, 2006); and one study, conducted in the united Kingdom, inves- tigated the attitudes, skill levels, and professional devel- opment opportunities related to research use in practice (sheldon & Chilvers, 2002). in another study, researchers conducted focus groups to explore attitudes and imple- mentation challenges toward ebPs in two community mental health centers (nelson, steele, & Mize, 2007), and in a similar study, researchers explored the perspectives of agency directors on the same topic (Proctor et al., 2007). a small mixed-method longitudinal study of an intensive program to embed a new cultural perspective in a group of community mental health practitioners followed 14 social workers at various levels of training in a single community mental health outpatient clinic for 2 years (gioia & dzi- adosz, 2008).

all the studies noted poor workplace support, specifi- cally for development of skills and encouragement of ap- plication of research. in all the studies, time, concerns about professional autonomy, power or control issues, and the sometimes questionable applicability of research find- ings to particular clients were noted as obstacles to use of research. The studies agreed, in general, that while practi- tioners may feel positively about the idea of ebP, there are varying degrees of workplace support for them to imple- ment such models; sheehan et al., (2007) found that 62% of the respondents in their study had no agency requirements to provide ebP. additionally, these studies agreed that is- sues such as population diversity and productivity require- ments may affect attitudes, and that rather than support- ing innovation, clinical supervision is usually focused on risk-management and administrative issues. all studies supported further research about practitioners’ behaviors and feelings about ebP.

Research Questions The purpose of this study was to increase knowledge about the current state of ebP in real-life social work practice settings. in the beginning of the survey, we did not define ebP for respondents, choosing instead to explore attitudes and beliefs about how it was being conceptualized and operationalized before providing a definition for respon- dents to use when responding to later survey questions. The definition we provided halfway through the survey was: “evidence-based practice is a process of including the best available research evidence alongside practice wisdom to make clinical decisions, and evaluating the outcomes of your decisions.”

This exploratory study was framed by the four following research questions: 1. What is being considered as evidence by social work

practitioners and how are they defining effective prac- tice in real-life settings?

2. What are the barriers that practitioners encounter in

Wharton & Bolland | Practitioner Perspectives of Evidence-Based Practice

159

accessing research evidence, and is there a difference between actual and perceived barriers?

3. is the social work practice environment oriented toward evidence-based practice?

4. What is the attitude of practitioners toward the con- cept of implementing an ebP model?

Sampling and Recruitment

This study focused on master’s-level social workers prac- ticing in the united states. unfortunately, it is impossible to get a list of names and contact information or even the number of master’s-level social workers practicing in this country. one report, published by the national associa- tion of social Workers (nasW) Center for Workforce de- velopment, noted that there may be as many as 840,000 practitioners, depending on the definition being used (nasW, 2006). a research service with the u.s. Postal service (usPs) has more than 600,000 individuals self- identified as social workers in the united states (Collins, personal communication, 2009). to reach a broad sample, we used three recruitment methods: direct email, social networking site invitations, and direct mail. a list of email addresses was obtained from nasW which contained 5,556 individuals having a master of social work (MsW) degree in the “education” category. of these, 1,666 had valid email addresses and had not opted out of surveys with survey Monkey. an initial email included informa- tion and a hyperlink; a reminder email was sent in the next month, and an email containing a thank-you for partici- pation and a reminder of the hyperlink was sent approxi- mately one month later. an invitation to participate in this research was posted on several social networking sites (e.g., facebook, linkedin). Where possible, the text used in the email invitations was used; where a simple, short post was required, a two-line invitation stating “Please help with re- search about social work practice. www.ebPsurvey.com” was posted. Posts were made on the same time schedule as the email invitations (i.e., whenever a post was sent to the email list, a social network post was made).

a mailing list was purchased from usPs, and postcards were created for a mailing using the usPs Click2Mail ser- vice. a usPs staff researcher pulled 1,000 random entries of people who self-identified as social workers. The list was scanned by that researcher to ensure that there were no du- plicates, and mailing addresses were provided. The usPs staff researcher indicated that her search returned indi- viduals identified as working in a variety of types of social work practice fields (e.g., school, medical, child, gerontol- ogy), as well as a geographically diverse sample. The search universe was reported as approximately 600,000 people. one thousand records were purchased and uploaded di- rectly to the postcard service, where 4 × 6 postcards were printed and mailed. of these, 144 were returned as unde- liverable; we presume the remaining 856 were delivered.

a total of 228 individuals logged on to take the survey. of these, 69 were excluded as a result of nationality other than united states or because it was not clear that they had earned an MsW, leaving a total of 159.

The Survey The survey consisted of 32 closed-response questions and four open-ended questions. There were comment fields af- ter each question, and a comment field at the end of the survey. respondents could skip questions or stop and return later to complete the survey. it was posted online using survey Monkey after institutional review board ap-

Table 1. Descriptive Information of Sample (N = 159) Characteristics M range

age 58 28–77

Year of MsW 1982 1957–2009

Caseload size 27 1–90

n %

gender

female 124 78

Male 29 18

no response 6 4

race/ethnicity

White 137 86

non-White (all categories) 17 11

no response 5 3

Practice setting

Private practice 77 48

nonprofit 25 16

government/public 19 12

Medical/palliative 13 8

education (all types combined) 11 7

other 5 3

Works with more than one type of population

109 69

has a workplace policy about ebP 22 14

regularly reads journal articles 115 72

regularly consults with peers 114 72

regularly consults with supervisors/experts

111 70

regularly gets practice information from the internet

110 69

subscribes to a professional mailing or e-list

77 48

uses professional org. websites to find practice info

71 45

uses popular search engines to find practice info

65 41

uses WebMd to find practice info 54 34

Families in society | Volume 93, no. 3

160

proval was obtained. during survey development, consul- tation was sought from several social work practitioners to ensure that jargon was kept to a minimum and that language use was appropriate. after a pilot test (n = 89), several changes were made to streamline and shorten the survey as much as possible.

findings

Who Responded to the Survey? The convenience sample (n = 159) consisted of experienced, licensed social workers from across the united states, with a mean age of 58 years, which is somewhat older than respondents in other available studies (Whitaker & ar- rington, 2008). They tended to have obtained their MsW degrees in the early 1980s. They were more likely than not to be female and White. They generally had access to the internet at home and work, and were highly likely to be subscribed to electronic discussion groups or organiza- tional email lists. in general, this group worked in one or two settings, with nearly half working in a private practice setting at least part of the time. They worked with more than two types of client population groups and had a mean caseload size of 27, ranging from an average of 26 in private practice to 53 in public settings. see table 1 for a summary of descriptive information.

How Do Social Workers Make Practice-Related Decisions and How Do They Feel About EBP? Consistent with previous findings (nelson et al., 2007), respondents to this survey were more likely to consult with peers or mentors than to seek relevant research before making practice decisions. They relied on their training and experience and they were influenced heav- ily by clinical observation and common sense, being more likely to rely on a comparative, intuitive approach to thinking about research than on an empirical evalu- ation of applicability. Practice-based evidence appeared to guide most of their practice decisions, because they believed that research is often produced outside of real- life settings.

ebP appeared to be perceived as more technical (i.e., the use and application of specific practices) than pro- cedural—a finding that is consistent with previous re- search indicating that perceptions of ebP may be a bar- rier to uptake (Manuel et al., 2009; regehr et al., 2007). although practitioners may be making decisions based on subjective criteria, they are not opposed to a procedur- al approach to ebP, where several types of information (such as practice wisdom, client preference, and contex- tual issues) are considered alongside empirical evidence. respondents indicated that they had skills and access to literature, as well as an inclination to stay current on available research, despite, as one respondent put it, “how boring it is” to read.

Where Do Social Workers Get Evidence for Practice? nearly 70% of respondents (111 of 159) indicated that they consult with supervisors or experts; 114 respondents indicated that they regularly consult with peers, and 104 of these did so frequently. Consulting with peers, men- tors, supervisors, or experts was a distinctly preferred op- tion for decision making in practice, over other choices such as accessing journal articles or research databases, although searching the internet using popular search en- gines, WebMd, or professional organizational informa- tion pages was common.

few people (n = 13) indicated that accessing a database would be their first or second choice for getting informa- tion about treatment decision making, although a sub- stantial number of people (n = 94) indicated that they had accessed one, with only 20 people indicating that they never had. a majority of the respondents (n = 77) were subscribed to an organizational mailing or e-list, and more than two thirds of the sample (n = 110) indicated that they conducted internet searches regularly for prac- tice-related information. The most popular places for ob- taining information seemed to be portals of professional organizations, such as the nasW, american evaluation association, and american Psychological association (n = 71), with standard, popular search engines such as google, Yahoo, or university-based search engines (n = 65), and WebMd (n = 54) also quite popular.

How Do Social Workers Determine the Utility of Evidence and the Validity of Expertise? respondents to this survey reported that they make these determinations by applying practice wisdom; consider- ing the context in which they work; comparing client details to those found in research; and consulting with peers, mentors, and experts. as consulting with experts appears to be a deeply embedded behavior for the practi- tioners in this survey, the perception of what constitutes an expert is important. respondents to the survey ques- tion “What do you think makes someone an expert?” were definitive in their assertion that practice experience, preferably over an extended period of time, is critical. in addition, an ability to understand and conduct research, backed up with appropriate training and credentials, was noted as an important quality.

Are Workplaces Oriented Toward EBP? although many respondents to this survey were private practitioners, their practice environment is as important as the environment of agency-based practitioners: The im- pact of a variety of systems, such as insurance and billing requirements, client needs or preferences, and political or professional pressure may be constantly in play. over- whelmingly, respondents indicated they had internet ac- cess at work, as well as access to research databases and

Wharton & Bolland | Practitioner Perspectives of Evidence-Based Practice

161

journal articles. They generally consulted with supervisors or experts at least monthly, with a few indicating that they did not engage in this behavior. They endorsed behaviors related to continuing education. only 22 people indicated that their workplace had a policy related to ebP. although this sample is heavily weighted toward private practice, this same trend can be seen in respondents from nonprofit and government/public settings; there may be differences in policy implementation across types of practice fields, although the small sample size in this study prevented deeper investigation of this point. These data suggest that social workers in private practice are less likely than oth- ers to be asked to justify treatment choices or to be asked specifically about evidence-based or research-informed practice, although this is not universally true. The heavy bias toward private practice in this sample precluded solid examination of this area.

in general, this group of people regularly accessed super- visors or experts, although a significant segment of private practitioners indicated that they received no formal super- vision, but consulted with experts or mentors as needed. They participated in continuing education opportunities and attended conferences at least annually, tended to have no imposed policies related to ebP, were not frequently asked about ebP concepts, and were not often asked to jus- tify their treatment choices. Their work environments ap- peared to offer access to research information and the time to consume it, although there was little encouragement to use research findings.

Barriers to Uptake There appeared to be some difference between barriers per- ceived to be problematic for the profession as a whole and barriers actually experienced by the people who responded

to the questions (see table 2). although lack of time to ac- cess literature was endorsed by respondents as a barrier to ebP in the profession as a whole, when asked specifically about the frequencies of those behaviors, the majority of this sample indicated that they did have time in their work schedule to access and read research. More than half of the respondents indicated that they read journal articles and other professionally oriented material at least monthly. The issue here may be more closely related to time management than to the simple provision of time. family commitments was also both endorsed and perceived as a barrier to con- suming research, which may be related to the issue of time management, because family responsibilities may burden the ability to manage time for searching and reading.

access and cost were recognized as important barriers, although not substantially so. respondents’ reports that they regularly read research literature and attend con- tinuing education and conferences seem to indicate that these are not substantial barriers. Perhaps there are unseen trade-offs; while some access is clear, given less cost or in- creased opportunity, greater engagement might occur. it seems logical that if people endorse cost and lack of access as barriers, but demonstrate that they engage in associated behaviors anyway, there must be some decision points sur- rounding trade-offs regarding accessing information.

both lack of knowledge and overwhelmingness (i.e., re- search is overwhelming to read) were perceived to be more significant barriers to the profession as a whole than to the individuals who responded to the question, although most people did not find them to be important issues. These find- ings are supported by narrative data, which indicate that there is a general feeling that social workers have the skills to consume research and do not find it overwhelming, al- though they may find it “boring” or not relevant to their clinical practice. experience with research, or the ability to understand and interpret it, though, were identified as qualities in an expert; so it seems likely that although most respondents felt sufficiently able to engage with research on their own, they felt that there were people who could do it better than they. given that consulting with others is an embedded practice, relative ability to access and consume research information might be less important. if practitio- ners had regular access to experts, they might not need to have the expertise to understand complicated data, since there would be support available to help it make sense.

Implications for Social Work Practice

The William t. grant foundation (2010) identified sever- al different types of evidence use, based on Weiss, nutley, and davies’s definitions of evidence. Instrumental use de- scribes information used directly in practice; conceptual use describes instances where understanding is changed by exposure to information; and imposed use describes instances where use of information is mandated by

Table 2. Barriers Toward Utility of Evidence-Based Practice

Problem for profession

Problem personally

barriers M (SD) M (SD) significant difference

time 1.54 (0.73) 1.76 (0.93) .004**

access 2.59 (1.07) 2.73 (1.03) .152

Cost 2.18 (0.99) 2.54 (1.16) <.001**

skills/lack of knowledge to interpret

2.63 (0.99) 3.21 (0.88) <.001**

research is overwhelming

2.45 (0.97) 3.04 (0.96) <.001**

family commitments

2.05 (0.88) 2.23 (0.99) .045*

lack of workplace support

2.23 (1.17) 2.84 (1.22) <.001**

Note. scale: 1 = very important to 4 = definitely not important (higher score = less important). two-tailed test: *significant at 0.05; **significant at 0.01.

Families in society | Volume 93, no. 3

162

policy. Most respondents to this survey seemed to ap- proach information use as conceptual, expecting research information to change how they understood something. relatively rarely did the respondents apply information instrumentally—directly translating research into their clinical practice—without first considering its proximal similarity or trustworthiness and consulting other sourc- es. it also appeared that there was concern, both in the literature and among respondents to this survey, that use of evidence would be imposed, forcing practitioners to give up flexibility and to sacrifice client preference, points that are identified as deeply embedded aspects of social work practice (nelson et al., 2007; regehr et al., 2007). such concerns are well founded, as some states have be- gun to restrict the types of interventions and practices that can be used with some populations to include only “evidence-based” ones, and there is pressure from some research and academic sectors to reduce practice to ap- proaches that can be empirically measured and proven effective (institute for the advancement of social Work research, 2007; rapp et al., 2010).

Consistent with previous research, there was concern among these respondents about “lack of fit of the evi- dence with the complexities of…practice, including the diversity of clients, situations, and circumstances” (Man- uel et al., 2009, p. 623). although attitudes about ebP were fairly positive in general, there was concern about research being created by sources outside the practice

field. This finding has an important implication for re- searchers: Knowing that practitioners consider the proxi- mal similarity of the data and the trustworthiness of the source, making these things clear and transparent could assist practitioners in translating research to practice. additionally, the dissemination of information with an eye toward the locating mechanisms being used by prac- titioners could assist in increasing reach. The knowledge that peer consultation, continuing education, and inter- net searches through professional networking sites and popular search mechanisms are the preferred means of getting information for practice is quite valuable. by tar- geting the dissemination of empirical evidence through these channels, a broader access may be facilitated than by compiling collections of systematic reviews in less fa- miliar or inaccessible databases, a sentiment consistent with previous findings (Mullen et al., 2008; nelson et al., 2007). although respondents indicated that lack of skills was not an issue, the extent to which this is actually true is unclear, and it is possible that limited or rusty skill sets related to database use may have limited the inclination to use research-oriented search engines or databases, when easier and faster approaches were readily available.

although practitioners in this study had access to the internet and to research information, it is important to recognize that few workplaces have policies related to the use of an ebP practice model, and that practitioners are not frequently asked to justify their treatment choices.

Figure 1. Instrumental and conceptual evidence use in practice.

Training and experience

Setting context

Political or external pressure

Resources

Instrumental use of evidence

Conceptual use of evidence

Intermediary organizations

Acquisition & interpretation of

research evidence

Proximal similarity & trustworthiness of

source

Interactions with peers & experts

Wharton & Bolland | Practitioner Perspectives of Evidence-Based Practice

163

although access is a necessary first step, explicit support within the work environment would have direct practice implications in this area. no matter the personal orienta- tion of a social worker, if the workplace is not supportive of good practice habits such as supervision, continuing edu- cation, clear formulation of treatments, and use of research findings, there is little chance that behaviors will become embedded in the worker’s practices. additionally, barriers to ebP in clinical settings, such as skills, time, and access, might be mitigated by other factors; time management and lack of agency support, for example, can be addressed through formal or in-service education as administrators become aware of these issues.

findings from this study can be framed in a model to describe how practitioners use evidence (see figure 1). This model includes two ways evidence might be used: instru- mental use (directly putting something into action) and conceptual use (changing the way information is under- stood). in this model, all factors but one related to instru- mental use of evidence are routed through a decision point about proximal similarity and trustworthiness of source. evidence may be acquired through training and experi- ence, from interactions with peers, experts, or intermedi- ary organizations (such as the nasW); these in turn are influenced by political or external pressures and setting context. The same routes of information acquisition ap- ply to the conceptual use outcome, with the exception that practitioners may not feel the need to decide the proximal similarity or trustworthiness of source in the same way, as this outcome is primarily concerned with a conceptual un- derstanding and not a direct translation of research into action. The model acknowledges that there are instances in which political pressures may change settings and influ- ence resources, which may have a direct impact on the in- strumental use of evidence in practice, circumventing the judgment of individual practitioners.

Limitations and Proposed Future Research The small sample size limits the consideration of contrib- uting details, such as practice environment, and use of a convenience sample limits the generalizability of the con- clusions. although respondents resembled “typical” social workers in many ways (see section “Who responded to the survey?” and table 1), they tended to be a little older; younger social workers, educated since the 1980s, might have somewhat different attitudes and practices with re- spect to ebP. one might also speculate that social workers less inclined to respond to internet surveys might also be less inclined to use the internet to seek evidence regarding practice, but we hesitate to make such a suggestion, absent evidence. Certainly the findings suggest trends that call for further investigation.

a more in-depth investigation of the differences be- tween private practice and other fields of social work prac- tice is clearly called for by this research. Just as previous

research uncovered differences across settings (Manuel et al., 2009; Mullen & bacon, 2004; nelson et al., 2007), in- formation that sheds light on the uniqueness of work in the private sector and the factors at work in such environments could be extremely valuable to the profession. similarly, as consultation with peers, experts, and mentors is clearly indicated as a source of information and support among practitioners in this study, further investigation of this phe- nomenon is called for. finally, with ever-increasing and un- precedented global access to information, consideration of the differences in acquisition and interpretation of research evidence is needed. While social workers are faced with similar tasks and professional parameters, the contexts in which they practice, the political and external pressures, and the resources available vary widely. how research in- formation is obtained, how utility of information is deter- mined, and how decisions are made about client treatment are important pieces of information that could introduce better ways of disseminating information and supporting the technical needs of social workers in practice.

References aarons, g., & sawitzky, a. (2006). organizational culture and climate

and mental health provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychological Services, 3(1), 61–72.

addis, M. e., & Krasnow, a. d. (2000). a national survey of practicing psychologists’ attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(2), 331–339.

bellamy, J., bledsoe, s., & traube, d. (2006). the current state of evidence based practice in social work: a review of the literature and qualitative analysis of expert interviews. Journal of Evidence- Based Social Work, 3, 23–48.

booth, s. h., booth, a., & falzon, l. J. (2003). the need for information and research skills training to support evidence- based social care: a literature review and survey. Learning in Health and Social Care, 2(4), 191–201.

Council on social Work education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards handbook. alexandria, Va: author.

Crawford, P., brown, b., anthony, P., & hicks, C. (2002). reluctant empiricists: Community mental health nurses and the art of evidence-based praxis. Health and Social Care in the Community, 10(4), 287–298.

gerdes, K., edmonds, r., haslam, d., & McCartney, t. (1996). a statewide survey of licensed clinical social workers’ use of practice evaluation procedures. Research on Social Work Practice, 6(1), 27–39.

gibbs, l. (2003). Evidence-based practice for the helping professions. Pacific grove, Ca: brooks/Cole.

gioia, d., & dziadosz, g. (2008). adoption of evidence-based practices in community mental health: a mixed-method study of practitioner experience. Community Mental Health Journal, 44, 347–357.

glisson, C., & schoenwald, s. (2005). the arC organizational and community intervention strategy for implementing evidence- based children’s mental health treatments. Mental Health Services Research, 7(4), 243–259.

institute for the advancement of social Work research. (2007). Partnerships to integrate evidence-based mental health practices into social work education and research. report from april 12, 2007 symposium sponsored by the national institute of Mental health. Washington, dC: author.

Families in society | Volume 93, no. 3

164

Manuel, J., Mullen, e., fang, l., bellamy, J., & bledsoe, s. (2009). Preparing social work practitioners to use evidence-based practice: a comparison of experiences from an implementation project. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 613.

Mullen, e. J., & bacon, W. (2004). a survey of practitioner adoption and implementation of practice guidelines and evidence based treatments. in a. r. roberts & K. Yeager (eds.), Evidence based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services (pp. 210–218). new York, nY: oxford university.

Mullen, e., bledsoe, s., & bellamy, J. (2008). implementing evidence- based social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 325–338.

national association of social Workers. (2006). licensed social workers in the united states, 2004. supplement: Chapter 2: Who are licensed social workers? NASW Membership Workforce Study. Washington, dC: nasW Center for health Workforce studies.

national institutes of health. (2007). Research on Social Work Practice Concepts in Health (R01), PA-07–292 (funding opportunity announcement). Washington, dC: retrieved from http://grants. nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/Pa-07-292.html

nelson, t., steele, r., & Mize, J. (2007). Practitioner attitudes toward evidence-based practice: themes and challenges. Administration of Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 33, 398–409.

olsson, t. (2007). reconstructing evidence based practice: an investigation of three conceptualisations of ebP. Evidence and Policy, 3(2), 271–285.

Proctor, e. (2007). implementing evidence-based practice in social work education: Principles, strategies, and partnerships. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(5), 583–591.

Proctor, e., Knudsen, K., fedoravicius, n., hovmand, P., rosen, a., & Perron, b. (2007). implementation of evidence-based practice in community behavioral health: agency director perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 34, 479–488.

rapp, C., goscha, r., & Carlson, l. (2010). evidence-based practice implementation in Kansas. Community Mental Health Journal, 46, 461–465.

regehr, C., stern, s., & shlonsky, a. (2007). operationalizing evidence- based practice: the development of an institute for evidence- based social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(3), 408–416.

sackett, d., rosenberg, W., gray, J., haynes, r., & richardson, W. (1996). evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.

sheehan, a., Walrath, C., & holden, e. W. (2007). evidence-based practice use, training and implementation in the community- based service setting: a survey of children’s mental health service providers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 169–182.

sheldon, b., & Chilvers, r. (2002). an empirical study of the obstacles to evidence-based practice. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 10(1), 6–26.

Whitaker, t., & arrington, P. (2008). social workers at work. NASW Membership Workforce Study. Washington, dC: national association of social Workers.

William t. grant foundation. (2010). understanding the acquisition, interpretation, and use of research evidence in policy and practice (request for research proposals). Research Use RFP 2010. Washington, dC: author.

Tracy c. Wharton, PhD, lCsW, senior research specialist, Va ann arbor Healthcare system Geriatric research, education and Clinical Center. kathleen A. Bolland, PhD, assistant dean, educational Pro- grams and student services, University of alabama school of social Work. Correspondence: [email protected]; Veterans administra- tion GreCC, 2215 Fuller road (11G), ann arbor, mi 48105. Authors’ note. We wish to thank Christy Gabany for her assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. the opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.s. government or any of its agencies.

manuscript received: september 13, 2011 revised (1): november 25, 2011 revised (2): march 7, 2012 accepted: march 9, 2012 Disposition editor: susan e. mason

Executive-, Senior-, and Management-Level Positions

H u M a n S E rv i c E S coMP EnSat ion

in the United StateS

The Latest competitive Data to attract and Retain the Best talent

20 12

Questions: 414-359-6578 alliance1.org/pubs/compensation

©2012 Alliance for Children and Families. All Rights Reserved. 12-117

Report provides data about compensation for management positions, including:

• Current compensation practices and packages with details about salaries, benefits, and personnel practices

• Compensation data breakdowns by organization budget category, organizational structure, geographic region, individuals’

educational degree, and years in the human services industry

• Information pertaining to level of education (New to 2012 report)

12-117 ERS 2012 Comp Report Ad.indd 1 7/19/12 1:47 PM