Advertisement

Step 4 of EBP: Collaboratively Discussing Treatment Options with the Client

  • James W. Drisko
  • Melissa D. Grady
Chapter
Part of the Essential Clinical Social Work Series book series (ECSWS)

Abstract

Step 4 of the EBP process centers on discussing the relevant research results collaboratively with the client. It includes providing a plain language summary of the results to the client and actively exploring how the results fit with the client’s needs, situation, values, and preferences. This chapter examines why such an active, collaborative discussion is important and how it serves to support positive client outcomes. Four rationales for active and collaborative discussion with the client are offered. Topics a clinician might include in such a summary of relevant research are examined in depth and detail.

Keywords

Evidence-based practice The steps of evidence-based practice Active collaboration with clients Informed consent Consent to treat Ethical issues in EBP Cultural competence Building the therapeutic alliance Person-centered treatment Patient-centered care 

References

  1. Anderson, K., Bautista, C., & Hope, D. (2018). Therapeutic alliance, cultural competence and minority status in premature termination of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Online first.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, M., Price, E., Gary, T., Robinson, K. A., Gozu, A., Palacio, A., et al. (2005). Cultural competence: A systematic review of health care provider educational interventions. Medical Care, 43(4), 356–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drisko, J. (2017). Active collaboration with clients: An under-emphasized but vital part of evidence-based practice. Social Work, 62(2), 114–121.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Gambrill, E. (2001). Social work: An authority-based profession. Research on Social Work Practice, 11, 166–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Høglend, P. (2014). Exploration of the patient-therapist relationship in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 1056–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Horvath, A., & Symonds, B. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 38, 139–149.Google Scholar
  7. Horvath, A., & Bedi, R. (2002). The alliance. In J. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients (pp. 37–69). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hubble, M., Duncan, B., Miller, S., & Wampold, B. (2010). Introduction. In B. Duncan, S. Miller, B. Wampold, & M. Hubble (Eds.), The heart & soul of change, 2nd ed. (pp. 23–46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  9. Huber, J., Born, A.-K., Claaß, C., Ehrenthal, J. C., Nikendei, C., Schauenburg, H., et al. (2018). Therapeutic agency, in-session behavior, and patient–therapist interaction. Journal of Clinical Psychology. [online first].  https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kondrat, M. E. (2008). Person-in-environment. In T. Mizrahi & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (20th ed., pp. 348–354). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Levinson, W., Lesser, C., & Epstein, R. (2010). Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Affairs, 29(7), 1310–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2017). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  13. Norcross, J. (2010). The therapeutic relationship. In B. Duncan, S. Miller, B. Wampold, & M. Hubble (Eds.), The heart & soul of change (2nd ed., pp. 113–141). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  14. Orlinsky, D., Rønnestad, M., & Willutzki, U. (2004). Fifty years of process-outcome research: Continuity and change. In M. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 307–390). New York, NY: Wiley Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ortega, R., & Coulborn Faller, K. (2011). Training child welfare workers from an intersectional cultural humility perspective: A paradigm shift. Child Welfare, 90(5), 27–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Romana, H.-W. (2006). Is evidence-based medicine patient-centered and is patient-centered care evidence-based? Health Services Research, 41(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smedley, B., Stith, A., & Nelson, R. (Eds.). (2002). Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. Swenson, S., Buell, S., Zettler, P., White, M., Ruston, D., & Lo, B. (2004). Patient-centered communication: Do patients really prefer it? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(11), 1069–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tervalon, M., & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care with the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Towle, A., & Godolphin, W. (1999). Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 319(7212), 766–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walsh, J. (2010). Theories for direct social work practice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  22. Wampold, B. (2010). The basics of psychotherapy: An introduction to theory and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  23. Weiner, S., Schwartz, A., Sharma, G., Binns-Calvey, A., Ashley, N., Kelly, B., et al. (2013). Patient-centered decision making and health care outcomes. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(8), 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Drisko
    • 1
  • Melissa D. Grady
    • 2
  1. 1.School for Social WorkSmith CollegeNorthamptonUSA
  2. 2.School of Social ServiceCatholic University of AmericaWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations