The Myth of Evidence-Based Practice: Towards Evidence-Informed Practice

By I. Nevo, V. Slonim-Nevo. 2011

264 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, General Health Professions, Occupational Therapy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f7e0114fff74267b32eddd21c4123eddd038f2ce

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. S. Vella
2. Anthony Okely
3. K. Malterud
4. D. Polit
5. Cheryl Tatano Beck

In General Health Professions

1. S. Thorne
2. K. Malterud
3. Trisha Greenhalgh
4. S. Vella
5. R. Keegan
6. D. Lubans
7. Norbert Steigenberger
8. Bongkosh Rittichainuwat

Citations in the corpus

• Defining Physical Literacy for Application in Australia: A Modified Delphi Method (2019, background): “…specifically sensitive and appropriate to the Australian context; (g) was aligned to schools, sporting organizations, and family contexts; and (h) was evidence-informed – that is, compatible with, and responsive to, existing research evidence (cf. Nelson & Campbell, 2017; Nevo & Slonim-Nevo, 2011).”
• Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018, result): “We align with previous authors, who, drawing on Wittgenstein, distinguish between puzzles or problems that require data (for which a conventional systematic review, with meta-analysis where appropriate, may be the preferred methodology) and those that require clarification and insight (for which a m”