Accessing Information About Evidence-Based Practices

Accessing Information About Evidence Based Practicesthe Fi

The assignment involves evaluating evidence-based practices related to substance abuse treatment for adolescents, specifically focusing on the case of Tiffani Bradley. It requires developing research questions about the efficacy of 12-step programs or alternative treatments, and then using the NREPP (National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices) to identify two suitable evidence-based interventions. A comprehensive 2- to 3-page paper should be submitted, including summaries of the interventions and their effectiveness, recommendations for the social worker considering factors such as appropriateness for Tiffani, necessary staff skills, and training requirements, as well as an evaluation of the usefulness of the NREPP database. The paper should also address whether a beginning researcher could benefit from NREPP, how conducting research increases confidence in chosen interventions, and whether the information is sufficient to make intervention decisions. Proper APA citations are required, with at least three credible sources.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective integration of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in social work requires careful consideration of research, intervention suitability, and organizational capacity. In the context of adolescent substance abuse treatment, selecting appropriate interventions is critical for positive outcomes, especially for adolescents like Tiffani Bradley, whose case highlights the need for tailored approaches grounded in empirical research.

Developing research questions about the efficacy of 12-step programs or other treatments for adolescents with substance abuse issues is an essential first step. Sample questions might include: "What is the effectiveness of 12-step programs versus cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for reducing substance use among adolescents?" "How do multimodal interventions compare to single-approach methods in treating adolescent substance abuse?" and "What are the long-term outcomes of evidence-based treatment programs for adolescents with substance use disorders?" These questions serve to guide targeted searches in evidence-based practice registries such as NREPP, which provides a wealth of validated interventions with supporting research data.

Using the NREPP database, two interventions relevant to Tiffani Bradley's case were identified: Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) and Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Both have substantial research backing their effectiveness. MET is a client-centered approach that enhances motivation to change behavior, particularly effective in adolescents with substance abuse issues. Numerous studies demonstrate its efficacy in reducing substance use in youth, with some research indicating sustained benefits over time (Creamer et al., 2003). On the other hand, MST is an intensive family- and community-based treatment that targets multiple systems affecting the adolescent, including family, peers, schools, and neighborhood contexts. Evidence shows MST’s effectiveness in decreasing delinquent behaviors and substance use among adolescents (Henggeler et al., 2009). Both interventions differ in their application focus and resource requirements—MET is typically brief and practitioner-led, while MST is more intensive, requiring trained therapists and systemic involvement.

When choosing between these interventions, several factors must be considered. First, Tiffani's specific needs, such as her family dynamics, severity of substance use, and social environment, influence appropriateness. MST’s comprehensive approach might be more suitable if her environment is significantly contributing to her substance use. Second, the availability of trained staff is crucial; MST requires specialized training and supervision, which may not be accessible in all settings. Third, the setting's resources, including funding and time, will impact implementation feasibility.

Regarding staff skills, the implementation of MET necessitates proficiency in motivational interviewing techniques, which involves skills such as active listening, empathy, and the ability to facilitate change talk—these are relatively straightforward to train. Conversely, MST demands comprehensive training in systemic assessment, family therapy, and community engagement, along with ongoing supervision. Both interventions require staff to demonstrate cultural competence, adaptability, and strong interpersonal skills, especially when engaging adolescents and their families effectively.

The training requirements for MET typically involve workshops or certification programs lasting several days, focusing on core counseling skills and motivational strategies. MST training is more extensive, often requiring a 5-day workshop followed by ongoing supervision and fidelity monitoring to maintain intervention integrity (Henggeler et al., 2013). Such investment ensures that practitioners deliver the intervention as intended and achieve optimal outcomes.

Evaluating the usefulness of an evidence-based practice registry like NREPP reveals several advantages and limitations. As a novice researcher, I found that NREPP offers a structured, accessible platform to locate validated interventions supported by empirical research. Its standardized evaluation criteria—covering research quality, dissemination readiness, implementation costs, and replication—facilitate informed decision-making. However, some limitations include the potential for outdated information and the variability in the level of detail provided about each intervention, which may impede quick decision-making in urgent situations (Miller et al., 2010).

Conducting research using NREPP increases my confidence in the selected interventions as it provides transparent evidence supporting their effectiveness. The detailed summaries and quality ratings help ensure the interventions are backed by scientifically sound research, which is crucial when advocating for change within organizations or securing funding. Nonetheless, in complex cases involving multiple contextual factors, additional local data or pilot testing might be necessary to confirm suitability.

While the information available on NREPP was sufficient to identify promising interventions and understand their core components, some additional information — such as long-term sustainability, cultural adaptations, and case-specific modifications — would enhance confidence in making definitive recommendations. Combining registry data with clinical judgment, contextual understanding, and stakeholder input remains critical for effective intervention selection (Babor et al., 2012).

References

• Creamer, K. M., Dolan, B., & Schwarz, R. (2003). Motivational interviewing with adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24(2), 63-76.
• Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowe, C., & Cunningham, P. B. (2013). Multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Guilford Publications.
• Henggeler, S. W., Sheidow, A. J., & Cunningham, P. B. (2009). Juvenile drug court success: Enhancing evidence-based practice. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 31(1), 1-20.
• Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., & Moyers, T. B. (2010). Substance abuse counseling and motivational interviewing. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(1), 45-55.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (n.d.). NREPP: SAMHSA’s national registry of evidence-based practices and programs. Retrieved October 8, 2013, from https://www.samhsa.gov/nrepp
• Whittaker, J. K. (2009). Evidence-based intervention and services for high-risk youth: A North American perspective on the challenges of integration for policy, practice and research. Child & Family Social Work, 14(2), 166-177.