During the last 10 years researchers in the field of substance abuse treatment have found most of the treatment organisations quite research and innovation resistant according to adopting the concept of evidence-based practice. It is the aim of this paper to show that the treatment services are not resistant to research and innovation, but they are organized around some organizational principles that are hardly compatible to the principles embedded in evidence-based practice.
Methods & Data
This study includes a mapping of the service structure and the treatment method's (evidence-based and not-evidence-based) in 21 outpatient treatment services for adolescent with substance abuse problems.
Results
The treatment services showed not to be occupied by implementing evidence-based practice, but were at the same time open for adoption of innovations in treatment structure and method's, which indicates that they are not resistant to innovations.
Conclusions
In this paper the self-organization of the treatment centres is analysed through a new institutional theory approach, and it is described how the institutional orientation of the treatment centres exclude an adoption of the concept of evidence-based practice. It is suggested that the researchers should shift focus from the inability of the treatment organizations to develop evidence-based practice, and instead focus on how to build up an evidence-based infrastructure in which the producers of evidence-based knowledge and the treatment organizations can obtain knowledge of each others work.
AbrahamsonD.J. (1999): Outcomes, guidelines, and manuals: On leading horses to water.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice6 (4, Winter): 467–471
2.
AddisM.E., & WadeW.A., & HatgisC. (1999): Barriers to dissemination of evidence-based practices: Adressing practitioners' concerns about manual-based psychotherapies.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice6 (4, Winter): 430–441
3.
BergmarkA. (2005): Evidence based practice – more control or more uncertainty?NAD47: 27–36
4.
BranniganR., & SchackmanB.R., & FalcoM., & MillmanR.B. (2004): The quality of highly regarded adolescent substance abuse treatment programs – results of an in-depth national survey.Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine158(Sep): 904–909.
5.
BrownB.S., & FlynnP.M. (2002): The federal role in drug abuse technology transfer: a history and perspective.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment22 (4): 245–257
6.
ChooC.W. (1998): The knowing organization, how organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions.New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press
7.
DansereauD.F., & DeesS.M. (2002): Mapping training: the transfer of a cognitive technology for improving counseling.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment22: 219–230
8.
EhrenreichD., & HansenS.P. (2005): Under-søgelse af unge under 18 år med misbrugsproblemer. Pp. 1–63.København: VFC socialt udsatte
9.
FinneyJ.W. (2000): Limitations in using existing alcohol treatment trials to develop practice guidelines.Addiction95 (10): 1491–1500
10.
GrolR., & ZwaardA., & MokkinkH., & DalhuijsenJ., & CasparieA. (1998): Dissemination of guidelines: which sources do physicians use in order to be informed?International Journal for Quality in Helth Care10 (2): 135–140
11.
HallW. (1997): Evidence-based treatment for drug misuse: bridging the gap between aspiration and achievement.Addiction92 (4): 373–374
12.
HasenfeldY. (1983): Human service organizations.Englewodd Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
13.
JørgensenP., & MainzJ., & RosenbergR. (2002): Forskning, medicinsk teknologivur-dering og kvalitetsudvikling. Pp. 17–25. I: JørgensenP., & MainzJ., & RosenbergR. (eds.): Psykiatri – forskning, teknologivurdering og kvalitetsudvikling.København: Munksgaard Danmark
14.
Koski-JännesA. (2005): On the problems of randomized clinical trials as means of advancing clinical practice.NAD47: 37–46
15.
LehmanW.E.K., & GreenerJ.M., & SimpsonD.D. (2002): Assessing organizational readiness for change.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment22: 197–209
16.
LiddleH.A., & RoweC.L., & QuilleT.J., & GayleA., & DakofD.S., & MillsE.S., & BiaggiH. (2002): Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment22: 231–243
17.
MainzJ., & NordentoftM. (2002): Kvalitets-udvikling. Pp. 167–200. I: JørgensenP., & MainzJ., & RosenbergR. (eds.): Psykiatri – Forskning, teknologivurdering og kvalitets-udvikling.København: Munksgaard Danmark
18.
NielsenB., & NielsenA.S. (2001): Odense-modellen – et bidrag til en evidensbaseret praksis ved behandling af alkoholmis-brugere. Pp. 172: Fyns Amt
19.
NordentoftM. (2002): Elementer i medicinsk teknologivurdering. Pp. 149–163. I: JørgensenP., & MainzJ., & RosenbergR. (eds.): Psykiatri – Forskning, teknologivur-dering og kvalitetsudvikling.København: Munksgaard Danmark
20.
NutleyS.M., & DaviesH.T.O. (2000): Making a reality of evidence-based practice: Some lessons from the diffusion of innovations.Public Money & Management October-December: 35–42
21.
OuchiW. (1977): Relationship between organizational structure and organizational control.Administrative Science Quarterly22: 95–113
22.
PedersenM.U. (2005): Drug-free treatment of substance misusers: Where are we now, where are we heading?NAD47: 11–26
23.
PedersenM.U. (Submitted 2005): How to use monitoring of treatment to document evidence based practice in residential drug-free treatment of women. Submitted to: The International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive Organizations
24.
RavndalE. (2005): Drug treatment in 2004 – Evidence based research or qualified beliefs?NAD47: 47–56
25.
ReynoldsS. (2000): The anatomy of evidence-based practice: Principles and methods. Pp. 17–34. In: TrinderL., & ReynoldsS. (eds.): Evidence-based practice – a critical appraisal.Blackwell Science
26.
SackettD.L., & RosenbergW.M. (1995): The need for evidence-based medicine.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine88 (11): 620–624
27.
ScottW.R. (1981/2003): Organizations – rational, natural, and open systems.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education inc.
28.
ShiffmanR.N., & BrandtC.A., & LiawY., & CorbG.J. (1999): A design model for computer-based guideline implementation based on information management services.Journal of the American Informatics Association6 (2): 99–103
29.
SimpsonD.D. (2002): A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment22:171–182
30.
SvenssonK. (2005): Rythm and rationality in the relationship between social worker, client and researcher.NAD47:57–70
31.
TrinderL. (1996): Social work research: the state of the art (or science).Child and Family Social Work1: 233–242
32.
TrinderL. (2000): Evidence-based practice in social work and probation. Pp. 138–162. In: TrinderL., & ReynoldsS. (eds.): Evidence-based practice – a critical appraisal.Blackwell Science
33.
VindL. (2005a): Evaluation capacity in innovative versus reproducing residential treatment centres for substance abusers in Denmark.NAD47: 97–106
34.
VindL. (2005b): Indføring af monitorering og selvevaluering i døgnbehandling for stofmisbrugere – institutionelt belyst
35.
VindL., & FinkeK. (In press 2006): Behan-dlingstilbud til unge med misbrugsproblemer – før kommunalreformen.Aarhus: Center for Rusmiddelforskning, Aarhus Universitet
36.
WebbS.A. (2001): Some considerations on the validity of evidence-based practice in social work.British Journal of Social Work31: 57–79
37.
WebbS.A. (2002): Evidence-based practice and decision analysis in social work: An implementation model.Journal of Social Work2 (1): 45–63
38.
WebsterJ., & LloydW.C., & PritchardM.A., & BurridgeC.A., & PlucknettL.E., & ByrneA.J. (1999): Development of evidence-based guidelines in midwifery and gynaecology nursing.Midwifery15: 2–5
39.
WeickK.E. (1995): Sensemaking in organisations.Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications
40.
WolfeJ. (1999): Overcoming barriers to evidence-based practice: Lessons from medical practitioners.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice6 (4) 445–448.
