Exploring the Evidence-Based Practice Process with Social Work Practitioners

ABSTRACT

Purpose

This study investigates social work practitioners’ feasibility, attitudes, and familiarity with the Evidence Based Practice (EBP) process in their work and their ability to access and integrate research into their practice.

Materials and Methods

Social work practitioners (N = 256) were recruited through Reddit and Facebook and completed an online survey. Participants completed demographic questions (e.g. time in practice, degree type, practice role), research-seeking behaviors, and completed three subscales of the Rubin & Parish Evidence-Based Practice Process Assessment Scale.

Results

The three EBP process subscales assessed participants’ familiarity, attitudes, and perceived feasibility of the EBP process. The familiarity subscale could range from zero to 40, and the mean in this sample was 26.75 (SD = 5.55). The attitudes subscale could range from 0 to 56, and the mean in this sample was 37.03 (SD = 5.49). Finally, the feasibility subscale could range from zero to 20, and the mean in this sample was 12.18 (SD = 2.81). A linear regression was run to predict familiarity, feasibility, and attitudes toward the EBP process. Those who reported seeking out research more often found the process more familiar and feasible. Those who were in practice longer found the EBP process less familiar and had more negative attitudes.

Discussion

Strategies to address research familiarity, feasibility, and attitudes toward the EBP process include continuing experiential learning in education, accessing research in social media, and the use of continuing education.

Conclusion

Continuing to address the research-practice gaps is an essential step toward delivering EBP to clients.

KEYWORDS:

• Evidence based practice process
• research-practice gap
• research implications
• familiarity with research
• social work practitioners

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Mary Held for her mentorship on this project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.