Evidence Based Practices in Mental Health: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Research Considerations

One widely accepted definition of Evidence Based Practices (EBPs) is that they are interventions for which scientific evidence con-sistently shows that the practice improves client outcomes.1 EBPs rely on the classifications of research studies and findings according to a vari-ety of evidence. In general, the highest standard requires evidence from several Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) by multiple teams of investigators comparing the practice to alternative practices or to no intervention. EBPs provide evidence of effective treatments or services based on rigorous research approaches that include randomization, control groups, studies with matched participants, blinding of service providers (so they are unaware of study participants or the treatment each individual receives), statistical analysis (often meta-analysis), and drawing accurate conclusions from study results.2 A panel convened by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 1998 identified six program models providing services to adults with serious mental illness (SMI) as EBPs. The six models are illness management and recovery, medication management, assertive community treatment, family psycho-education, supported employment, and integrated dual diag-nosis treatment.3 There are other models serving persons with SMI that produce beneficial outcomes and accrue varying levels of evidentiary support that includes RCTs, non-experimental research designs, and other systematic methods. However, these practices have not been reviewed or summa-rized with intensity and rigor, or research designs sufficient to achieve a generalized consensus in the research community, to label them EBPs