Skip Navigation

Institution: Stanford University Libraries Sign In as Personal Subscriber
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 2004 4(4):311-321; doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhh033
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Solomon, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stanhope, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Solomon, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stanhope, V.

Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention Vol. 4 No. 4, © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved.

Recovery: Expanding the Vision of Evidence-Based Practice

   Phyllis Solomon, PhD
   Victoria Stanhope, MSW

From School of Social Work, University of Pennsylvania

Contact author: Phyllis Solomon, PhD, Professor of Social Work, School of Social Work, 3701 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104–6214. E-mail: solomonp{at}ssw.upenn.edu.

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended that evidence-based practice and recovery be central components of mental health reform. There has been ongoing debate about the compatibility of evidence-based practice, a medical-model approach, and recovery, a consumer-centered approach. This paper will explore the two concepts and discuss the ways they can, in fact, be complementary when used as guiding principles for services research. Using recovery principles, researchers can address the limitations of evidence-based practice standards, which include relying too heavily on randomized trials, failing to establish effectiveness for diverse populations, and focusing exclusively on program structure rather than process. Including process variables, particularly consumer-provider relationships, enables researchers to study core program components, in addition to structural components, and to provide a more robust empirical basis for service effectiveness.

KEY WORDS: recovery, evidence-based practice, severe mental illness






Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.