Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.
Behav Res Ther. 2012 Mar;50(3):215-22. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2011.12.006. Epub 2012 Jan 3.
Despite growing support for the dissemination of empirically-supported treatments (ESTs), treatment providers have been slow to take up using ESTs. This study explored eating disorders (EDs) professionals' views of empirical support for psychotherapies for EDs and the role of empirical evidence in ED treatment selection. We distributed a web-based survey to members of two international organizations of ED practitioners and researchers; 402 members (32.7%) were eligible and participated. Most providers reported they used ESTs in treating EDs, but these ESTs were often folded into eclectic approaches rather than used in forms that had been evaluated in research trials. Use of ESTs and perceptions of empirical support for psychotherapies differed between participants who were and were not recently involved in research. We conclude that perceptions of available research evidence may be important to target in efforts to increase the uptake of ESTs in clinical practice and to help close the research-practice gap.
尽管越来越多的人支持传播经验支持的治疗方法（ESTs），但治疗提供者在采用 ESTs 方面一直进展缓慢。本研究探讨了饮食障碍（EDs）专业人士对 EDs 心理治疗的经验支持的看法，以及实证证据在 ED 治疗选择中的作用。我们向两个 ED 从业者和研究人员的国际组织成员分发了一份网络调查；402 名成员（32.7%）符合条件并参与了调查。大多数提供者报告说他们在治疗 EDs 时使用了 ESTs，但这些 ESTs 往往被纳入折衷方法，而不是以在研究试验中评估过的形式使用。使用 ESTs 和对心理治疗的实证支持的看法在最近是否参与研究的参与者之间存在差异。我们的结论是，针对可用研究证据的看法可能是提高 EST 在临床实践中应用的重要目标，有助于缩小研究与实践之间的差距。
