Salīdzināt metodes

	Evidence-Based Practice Process	Single-System Design
Nozare	Social Work	Social Work
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	1996	2009
Autors	Evidence-based medicine tradition (Sackett et al.); translated to social work by Gambrill and others	Martin Bloom, Joel Fischer & John G. Orme (codification in social work)
Tips	Structured process for integrating evidence, expertise, and client values in practice decisions	Time-series design for evaluating intervention with a single client system
Pirmavots	Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312(7023), 71–72.	Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (2009). Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional (6th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 9780205458066
Citi nosaukumi	EBP Process, Evidence-Based Practice (Process Model), Five-Step EBP Process, Evidence-Informed Practice Process	Single-Subject Design, Single-Case Design, N-of-1 Design, Single-System Evaluation
Saistītās	4	4
Kopsavilkums	The evidence-based practice (EBP) process is a structured, five-step way of making practice decisions by integrating the best available research evidence with professional expertise and the client's values and circumstances. Originating in evidence-based medicine as defined by Sackett and colleagues and translated into social work by Eileen Gambrill and others, it reframes EBP not as a fixed list of approved programs but as a transparent decision process — ask, acquire, appraise, apply, assess — that an individual practitioner carries out with and for a particular client.	A single-system design is a time-series approach to evaluating practice in which a single client system — an individual, family, group, or organization — is measured repeatedly on a clearly defined target before and during (and sometimes after) an intervention. By tracking the same system over time rather than comparing a treatment group to a control group, it lets a practitioner judge whether their own intervention is associated with change in the people they actually serve. It is the methodological backbone of the 'accountable professional' tradition codified by Bloom, Fischer, and Orme.