Research Article Evidence-Based Practice Empowers Practitioners: A Response to Epstein

Epstein makes a strong argument for the value of clinical data mining (CDM), although he minimizes some of the potential limitations in that methodology, such as attrition. Epstein’s portrayal of evidence-based practice (EBP) as practitioner-bashing and treasuring intervention manuals overlooks the emphasis in the EBP process on the need for practitioners to use their clinical expertise and judgment in deciding whether and how to implement research supported interventions. His portrayal of EBP as cherishing randomized clinical trials to the point of demeaning all other forms of research also is a misrepresentation of the EBP process and a straw man argument. Although CDM is one way to try to bridge the research–practice gap, arguing that it is perhaps the only or best way to do so overstates the case. Instead of bashing practitioners, as Epstein implies, EBP empowers them. Keywords mental health, field of practice My friendly collegial relationship with Irwin Epstein began in 1977 at a national conference on research utilization to which his article refers. Despite Irwin’s recent criticism of me and some of my evidence-based practice (EBP) comrades, our good relationship persists today, and I have great respect for Irwin’