Preface to the Series

Ronald F. Levant

The University of Akron

 

The quest to determine what works in mental health service is a critical one. Evidence for mental health interventions can be defined in many ways (Norcross et al., 2005). Building consensus on the definition of evidence, and ensuring that evidence-based practice in psychology recognizes not only the research but also the clinician’s expertise and the patient’s preferences, values, and culture, is important to the future of the profession and quality patient care. Some psychologists believe that psychological interventions should be based solely on randomized clinical trials, while others believe that other forms of evidence have their value. When I was the President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2005, I thought that it was vital that APA speak with one voice on the issue to avoid potential confusion among members, the public, media, legislators, health officials and third-party payers. Hence I chose to sponsor an APA Presidential Initiative on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology in 2005 .

This Presidential Initiative aimed to affirm the importance of attending to multiple sources of research evidence and to affirm that good psychological practice based on evidence is also based on clinical expertise and patient values. The mission of the APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology was three-fold, corresponding to the three components of the Institute of Medicine (2001) definition of Evidence-Based Practice (“Evidence-based practice is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values”):

1. To consider how a broader view of research evidence, one that inclusively considers multiple research designs, research in public health, health services research, and healthcare economics, should be integrated into a definition of Evidence-Based Practice in psychology.

2. To explicate the application and appropriate role of clinical expertise in treatment decision-making, including a consideration of the multiple streams of evidence that must be integrated by clinicians and a consideration of relevant research regarding the expertise of clinicians and clinical decision-making.

3. To articulate the role of patient values in treatment decision making, including a consideration of the role of ethnicity, race, culture, language, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, and disability status, and the issue of treatment acceptability and consumer choice.

This Task Force included a diverse group 18 scientists and practitioners. Areas of expertise include: clinical expertise and decision-making; health services research; public health and consumer perspectives; treatment outcome and process research; full time practice; clinical research and diversity; health care economics; and Evidence-Based Practice research/training and applications. I was pleasantly surprised and very impressed with how effectively the Task Force members worked to hear each others’ perspectives and seek common ground. The Task Force had brought together people who would not have been likely to attend each others’ programs at the APA annual convention working in mixed groups to hear and understand the multiple nuances involved in every issue.

The Task Force developed two documents. The first was a Policy Statement for APA governance action. The second document was a Report of the Task Force, which elaborated on the policy statement, supporting a broad conceptualization of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. Both documents offered the following definition: “Evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) is the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences” (APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, 2006) .

These efforts succeeded. The APA Council of Representatives at its August 2005 meeting adopted the Policy Statement and received the Report of the Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. In addition, the Report was published in the American Psychologist (American Psychological Association Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, 2006). Of note, the Report was adopted verbatim by the Norwegian Psychological Association (Norsk Psychologforening, 2007).

With this as a backdrop, I am delighted that the prestigious Commercial Press has decided to publish this series, titled Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology, for the Chinese mental health community and general public. From the vantage point of the U.S., China is viewed as a progressive country, able to make huge advances in education, science and technology very rapidly. With the publication of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology, the most up-to-date information available on evidence-based practice in psychology will be more accessible to the Chinese psychological and mental health community. This, in turn, will enable that community to implement evidence-based practices in mental health in China, which will redound to the benefit of the Chinese people.

 

References

APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice 2006. Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. American Psychologist, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp.271-285.

Institute of Medicine 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Norcross, J. C., L. E. Beutler and R. F. Levant 2006. Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Norsk Psykologforening 2007. Prinsipperklaering om Evidensbasert Psykologisk Praksis. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, Vol. 44, No. 9, pp.1127-1128.

Wampold, B. E., C. D. Goodheart and R. F. Levant 2007. Clarification and Elaboration on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. American Psychologist, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp.616-618.

Wendt, D. C. and B. D. Slife 2007. Is Evidence-Based Practice Diverse Enough? Philosophy of Science Considerations. American Psychologist, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp.613-614.

Whaley, A. L. and K. E. Davis 2007. Cultural Competence and Evidence-Based Practice in Mental Health Services: A Complementary Perspective. American Psychologist, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp.563-574.