Evidence-Based Practice As Mental Health Policy: Three Controversies And A Caveat

• Published in: Health Affairs Vol. 24; no. 1; pp. 163 - 173
• Main Author: Tanenbaum, Sandra J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Health Affairs 01.01.2005; The People to People Health Foundation, Inc., Project HOPE
• Subjects: Child & adolescent mental health; Clinical psychology; Decision making; Evaluation; Evidence; Evidence-Based Medicine; Evidence-based practice; Health care policy; Health Policy; Health services; Institutional change; Managed Care Programs - legislation & jurisprudence; Managed Care Programs - organization & administration; Medical research; Medicine; Mental disorders; Mental health; Mental health care; Mental health policy; Mental health services; Mental Health Services - legislation & jurisprudence; Mental Health Services - organization & administration; Patients; Policy making; Professionals; Psychologists; Psychotherapy; Research methodology; Science; Task forces; United States; United States; United States > US
• ISSN: 0278-2715; 1544-5208
• DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.163

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the subject of vigorous controversy in the field of mental health. In this paper I discuss three distinct but interrelated controversies: how inclusive the mental health evidence base should be; whether mental health practice is a variety of applied science; and when and how the effectiveness goal in mental health is defined. I provide examples of evidence-based policy in mental health. These controversies pertain as well to general medicine. To the extent that they remain unresolved, evidence-based policy making may lead to ineffective and limited care.