Evidence-based Practice in Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy

book review

Cancer Cachexia Care: The Contribution of Qualitative Research to Evidence-Based Practice

Background: Despite its prevalence and prognostic impact, primary cachexia is not well understood. Its potential to cause considerable psychological stress indicates the need for qualitative research to help understand the perspectives of those affected.

Objective: The aims of this study were to describe the perspectives of patients with primary cachexia, of their relatives, and of the healthcare professionals involved in their care and to demonstrate how this evidence can be applied in practice at 4 different levels of application ranging from empathy to coaching.

Methods: A review of the qualitative literature and empirical qualitative investigation was used to understand the experiences of patients and relatives and the perspectives of professionals.

Results: The main worries expressed by patients and relatives concerned appetite loss, changing appearance, prognosis, and social interaction. We also describe their coping responses and their views of professionals’ responses. The main concerns of professionals related to poor communication, lack of clinical guidance, and lack of professional education.

Conclusions: Understanding patients’, families’, and professionals’ perspectives, and mapping that understanding onto what we know about the trajectory and prognosis of the condition, provides the evidence base for good practice. Qualitative research has a central role to play in providing the knowledge base for the nursing care of patients with cachexia.

Implications for Practice: The evidence provided can improve nurses’ insight and assist them in assessment of status, the provision of guidance, and coaching. There is a need for the development of a holistic, information-based integrated care pathway for those with cancer cachexia and their families.

Social capital at work as a predictor of employee health: Multilevel evidence from work units in Finland

The majority of previous research on social capital and health is limited to social capital in residential neighborhoods and communities. Using data from the Finnish 10-Town study we examined social capital at work as a predictor of health in a cohort of 9524 initially healthy local government employees in 1522 work units, who did not change their work unit between 2000 and 2004 and responded to surveys measuring social capital at work and health at both time-points. We used a validated tool to measure social capital with perceptions at the individual level and with co-workers' responses at the work unit level. According to multilevel modeling, a contextual effect of work unit social capital on self-rated health was not accounted for by the individual's socio-demographic characteristics or lifestyle. The odds for health impairment were 1.27 times higher for employees who constantly worked in units with low social capital than for those with constantly high work unit social capital. Corresponding odds ratios for low and declining individual-level social capital varied between 1.56 and 1.78. Increasing levels of individual social capital were associated with sustained good health. In conclusion, this longitudinal multilevel study provides support for the hypothesis that exposure to low social capital at work may be detrimental to the health of employees. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The use and limitation of realistic evaluation as a tool for evidence-based practice: a critical realist perspective

In this paper, we assess realistic evaluation’s articulation with evidence-based practice (EBP) from the perspective of critical realism. We argue that the adoption by realistic evaluation of a realist causal ontology means that it is better placed to explain complex healthcare interventions than the traditional method used by EBP, the randomized controlled trial (RCT). However, we do not conclude from this that the use of RCTs is without merit, arguing that it is possible to use both methods in combination under the rubric of realist theory. More negatively, we contend that the rejection of critical theory and utopianism by realistic evaluation in favour of the pragmatism of piecemeal social engineering means that it is vulnerable to accusations that it promotes technocratic interpretations of human problems. We conclude that, insofar as realistic evaluation adheres to the ontology of critical realism, it provides a sound contribution to EBP, but insofar as it rejects the critical turn of Bhaskar’s realism, it replicates the technocratic tendencies inherent in EBP.