Discrepancies in Ratings of Behavioral Healthcare Interventions Among Evidence-Based Program Resources Websites.
Decision makers in the behavioral health disciplines could benefit from tools to assist them in identifying and implementing evidence-based interventions. One tool is an evidence-based program resources website (EBPR). Prior studies documented that when multiple EBPRs rate an intervention, they may...
| Publicado en: | Inquiry (00469580) pp. 1 - 12 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Sage Publications Inc.
7/18/2023
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=165047786&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 165047786 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 00469580 INQ jtl: Inquiry (00469580) issn: 00469580 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: 7/18/2023 pid: 344 pub: Sage Publications Inc. place: Thousand Oaks, California artinfo: ui: 165047786 165047786 165047786 10.1177/00469580231186836 165047786 ppf: 1 ppct: 11 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Discrepancies in Ratings of Behavioral Healthcare Interventions Among Evidence-Based Program Resources Websites. aug: au: Lee-Easton, Miranda Jade Magura, Stephen affil: Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA sug: subj: Behavioral Sciences Professional Practice, Evidence-Based Program Evaluation World Wide Web Human Logistic Regression Behavior Therapy Probability Dissent and Disputes Bias (Research) Mental Health Services Descriptive Statistics Comparative Studies Chi Square Test Correlation Coefficient Funding Source ab: Decision makers in the behavioral health disciplines could benefit from tools to assist them in identifying and implementing evidence-based interventions. One tool is an evidence-based program resources website (EBPR). Prior studies documented that when multiple EBPRs rate an intervention, they may disagree. Prior research concerning the reason for such conflicts is sparse. The present study examines how EBPRs rate interventions and the sources of disagreement between EBPRs when rating the same intervention. This study hypothesizes that EBPRs may disagree about intervention ratings because they either use different rating paradigms or they use different studies as evidence of intervention effectiveness (or both). This study identified 15 EBPRs for inclusion. One author (M.J.L.E.) coded the EBPRs for which "tiers of evidence" each EBPR used to classify behavioral health interventions and which criteria they used when rating interventions. The author then computed one Jaccard index of similarity for the criteria shared between each pair of EBPRs that co-rated interventions, and one for the studies used by EBPR rating pairs when rating the same program. The authors used a combination of chi-square, correlation, and binary logistic regression analyses to analyze the data. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the number of Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria shared between 2 EBPRs and the likelihood of those 2 EBPRs agreeing on an intervention rating (r = −.12, P ≤.01). There was no relationship between the number of studies evaluated by 2 EBPRs and the likelihood of those EBPRs agreeing on an intervention rating. The major reason for disagreements between EBPRs when rating the same intervention in this study was due to differences in the rating criteria used by the EBPRs. The studies used by the EBPRs to rate programs does not appear to have an impact. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|