View source for Evidence-based practice

{{short description|Pragmatic methodology}}
{{Evidence-based practices}}

'''Evidence-based practice''' is the idea that occupational practices ought to be based on [[Scientific evidence|scientific evidence]]. While seemingly obviously desirable, the proposal has been controversial, with some arguing that results may not specialize to individuals as well as traditional practices.<ref>For example: Trinder, L. and Reynolds, S. (eds) (2000) ''Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Appraisal''. Oxford, Blackwell Science.</ref> Evidence-based practices have been gaining ground since the formal introduction of [[Medicine:Evidence-based medicine|evidence-based medicine]] in 1992 and have spread to the allied health professions, [[Evidence-based education|education]], [[Evidence-based management|management]], [[Evidence-based legislation|law]], [[Evidence-based policy|public policy]], architecture, and other fields.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Ranking of Risks for Existing and New Building Works|journal=Sustainability|volume=11|issue=10|pages=2863|doi=10.3390/su11102863|year=2019|last1=Li|first1=Rita Yi Man|last2=Chau|first2=Kwong Wing|last3=Zeng|first3=Frankie Fanjie|doi-access=free}}</ref> In light of studies showing problems in scientific research (such as the [[Replication crisis|replication crisis]]), there is also a movement to apply evidence-based practices in scientific research itself. Research into the evidence-based practice of science is called [[Metascience|metascience]].

The movement towards evidence-based practices attempts to encourage and, in some instances, require professionals and other decision-makers to pay more attention to evidence to inform their decision-making. The goal of evidence-based practice is to eliminate unsound or outdated practices in favor of more-effective ones by shifting the basis for decision making from tradition, intuition, and unsystematic experience to firmly grounded scientific research.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Leach|first=Matthew J.|s2cid=37311515|date=2006|title=Evidence-based practice: A framework for clinical practice and research design|journal=International Journal of Nursing Practice|language=en|volume=12|issue=5 |pages=248–251|doi=10.1111/j.1440-172X.2006.00587.x |pmid=16942511 |issn=1440-172X}}</ref>

An individual or organisation is justified in claiming that a specific practice is evidence-based if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the individual or organisation possesses comparative evidence about the effects of the specific practice in comparison to the effects of at least one alternative practice. Second, the specific practice is supported by this evidence according to at least one of the individual's or organisation's preferences in the given practice area. Third, the individual or organisation can provide a sound account for this support by explaining the evidence and preferences that lay the foundation for the claim.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gade|first=Christian|date=2023|title=When is it justified to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based? Reflections on evidence and preferences|journal=Evidence & Policy|pages=1–10 |doi=10.1332/174426421X16905606522863 |doi-access=free}} {{CC-notice|cc=by4}}</ref>

==History==

For most of history, professions have based their practices on expertise derived from experience passed down in the form of [[Philosophy:Tradition|tradition]]. Many of these practices have not been justified by evidence, which has sometimes enabled [[Philosophy:Quackery|quackery]] and poor performance.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bourgault |first1=Annette M. |last2=Upvall |first2=Michele J. |title=De-implementation of tradition-based practices in critical care: A qualitative study |journal=International Journal of Nursing Practice |date=2019 |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=e12723 |doi=10.1111/ijn.12723|pmid=30656794 }}</ref> Even when overt quackery is not present, quality and efficiency of tradition-based practices may not be optimal. As the [[Scientific method|scientific method]] has become increasingly recognized as a sound means to evaluate practices, evidence-based practices have become increasingly adopted.

One of the earliest proponents of evidence-based practice was [[Biography:Archie Cochrane|Archie Cochrane]], an epidemiologist who authored the book ''Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services'' in 1972. Cochrane's book argued for the importance of properly testing health care strategies, and was foundational to the evidence-based practice of medicine.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cochrane |first=A.L. |title=Effectiveness and Efficiency. Random Reflections on Health Services |publisher=Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust |location=London |year=1972 |isbn=978-0900574177 |oclc=741462 }}</ref> Cochrane suggested that because resources would always be limited, they should be used to provide forms of health care which had been shown in properly designed evaluations to be effective. Cochrane maintained that the most reliable evidence was that which came from randomised controlled trials.<ref>Cochrane Collaboration (2003) http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/history/archie-cochrane {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224135522/https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/history/archie-cochrane |date=2021-02-24 }}</ref>

The term "[[Medicine:Evidence-based medicine|evidence-based medicine]]" was introduced by [[Biography:Gordon Guyatt|Gordon Guyatt]] in 1990 in an unpublished program description, and the term was later first published in 1992.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Development of evidence-based medicine explored in oral history video|url=https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/residency/development-evidence-based-medicine-explored-oral-history-video|access-date=2020-12-23|website=American Medical Association|date=27 January 2014 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sackett|first1=D L|last2=Rosenberg|first2=W M|date=November 1995|title=The need for evidence-based medicine.|journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine|volume=88|issue=11|pages=620–624|doi=10.1177/014107689508801105 |issn=0141-0768|pmc=1295384|pmid=8544145}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group|date=1992-11-04|title=Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1404801|journal=JAMA|volume=268|issue=17|pages=2420–2425|doi=10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032|issn=0098-7484|pmid=1404801}}</ref> This marked the first evidence-based practice to be formally established. Some early experiments in evidence-based medicine involved testing primitive medical techniques such as [[Unsolved:Bloodletting|bloodletting]], and studying the effectiveness of modern and accepted treatments. There has been a push for evidence-based practices in medicine by [[Finance:Insurance|insurance]] providers, which have sometimes refused coverage of practices lacking in systematic evidence of usefulness. It is now expected by most clients that medical professionals should make decisions based on evidence, and stay informed about the most up-to-date information. Since the widespread adoption of evidence-based practices in medicine, the use of evidence-based practices has rapidly spread to other fields.<ref>{{cite web |title=A Brief History of Evidence-based Practice |url=https://www.eboptometry.com/content/optometry/article/brief-history-evidence-based-practice-0 |website=Evidence Based Practice in Optometry |publisher=University of New South Wales |access-date=24 June 2019}}</ref>

More recently, there has been a push for [[Evidence-based education|evidence-based education]]. The use of evidence-based learning techniques such as [[Spaced repetition|spaced repetition]] can improve students' rate of learning. Some commentators{{Who|date=August 2013}} have suggested that the lack of any substantial progress in the field of education is attributable to practice resting in the unconnected and noncumulative experience of thousands of individual teachers, each re-inventing the wheel and failing to learn from hard scientific evidence about 'what works'. Opponents of this view argue that it is hard to assess teaching methods because it depends on a host of factors, not least those to do with the style, personality and beliefs of the teacher and the needs of the particular children.<ref>Hammersley, M. (2013) ''The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice''. London: Sage.</ref> Others argue the teacher experience could be combined with research evidence, but without the latter being treated as a privileged source.<ref>Thomas, G. and Pring, R. (eds.) (2004). ''Evidence-based Practice in Education''. Open University Press.</ref> This is inline with a school of thought suggesting that evidence-based practice has limitations and a better alternative is to use ''Evidence-informed Practice (EIP)''. This process includes quantitative evidence, does not include non-scientific prejudices, but includes qualitative factors such as clinical experience and the discernment of practitioners and clients.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq149|title=The Myth of Evidence-Based Practice: Towards Evidence-Informed Practice|first1=Isaac|last1=Nevo|first2=Vered|last2=Slonim-Nevo|date=September 1, 2011|journal=The British Journal of Social Work|volume=41|issue=6|pages=1176–1197|via=Silverchair|doi=10.1093/bjsw/bcq149}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.health.tas.gov.au/professionals/working-health-promoting-ways|title=Working in Health Promoting Ways|website=Tasmanian Department of Health|date=25 May 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260793333|title=Evidence-based Practice vs. Evidence-informed Practice: What's the Difference?}}</ref>

==Versus tradition==

Evidence-based practice is a philosophical approach that is in opposition to [[Philosophy:Tradition|tradition]]. Some degree of reliance on "the way it was always done" can be found in almost every profession, even when those practices are contradicted by new and better information.<ref name= Buysse2006>{{cite journal |last1=Buysse |first1=V. |last2=Wesley |first2=P.W.  |title=Evidence-based practice: How did it emerge and what does it really mean for the early childhood field? |journal=Zero to Three |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=50–55 |year=2006 |issn=0736-8038}}</ref>

Some critics argue that since research is conducted on a population level, results may not generalise to each individual within the population. Therefore, evidence-based practices may fail to provide the best solution to each individual, and traditional practices may better accommodate individual differences. In response, researchers have made an effort to test whether particular practices work better for different subcultures, personality types etc.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=de Groot |first1=M. |last2=van der Wouden |first2=J. M. |last3=van Hell |first3=E. A. |last4=Nieweg |first4=M. B. |title=Evidence-based practice for individuals or groups: let's make a difference |journal=Perspectives on Medical Education |date=31 July 2013 |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=216–221 |doi=10.1007/s40037-013-0071-2 |pmid=24101580 |pmc=3792230 }}</ref> Some authors have redefined evidence-based practice to include practice that incorporates common wisdom, tradition, and personal values alongside practices based on evidence.<ref name= Buysse2006 />

==Evaluating evidence==
{{Further| Hierarchy of evidence}}

Evaluating scientific research is extremely complex. The process can by greatly simplified with the use of a [[Heuristic|heuristic]] that [[Ranking|ranks]] the relative strengths of results obtained from scientific research called a [[Hierarchy of evidence|hierarchy of evidence]]. The design of the study and the endpoints measured (such as survival or [[Philosophy:Quality of life|quality of life]]) affect the strength of the evidence. Typically, [[Systematic review|systematic review]]s and [[Meta-analysis|meta-analysis]] rank at the top of the hierarchy while randomized controlled trials rank above observational studies, and expert opinion and [[Medicine:Case report|case report]]s rank at the bottom. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of the different types of studies, but there is no single, universally-accepted hierarchy of evidence. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical [[Philosophy:Evidence|evidence]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/critique-medical-evidence-hierarchies|title=Philosophical critique exposes flaws in medical evidence hierarchies|last=Siegfried|first=Tom | name-list-style = vanc |date=2017-11-13|work=Science News|access-date=2018-05-16 }}</ref>

== Applications ==
===Medicine===
{{Further|Medicine:Evidence-based medicine}}
Evidence-based medicine is an approach to medical practice intended to optimize [[Decision-making|decision-making]] by emphasizing the use of [[Philosophy:Evidence|evidence]] from well-designed and well-conducted [[Research|research]]. Although all medicine based on [[Science|science]] has some degree of [[Empirical evidence|empirical]] support, evidence-based medicine goes further, classifying evidence by its [[Philosophy:Epistemology|epistemologic]] strength and requiring that only the strongest types (coming from [[Meta-analysis|meta-analyses]], [[Systematic review|systematic review]]s, and [[Randomized controlled trial|randomized controlled trial]]s) can yield strong recommendations; weaker types (such as from case-control studies) can yield only weak recommendations. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.<ref name="Guyatt">{{cite journal |title=Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine |journal=JAMA |volume=268 |issue=17 |pages=2420–25 |date=November 1992 |pmid=1404801 |doi= 10.1001/JAMA.1992.03490170092032 |author1= Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group|citeseerx=10.1.1.684.3783 }}</ref> Use of the term rapidly expanded to include a previously described approach that emphasized the use of evidence in the design of guidelines and policies that apply to groups of patients and populations ("evidence-based practice policies").<ref name="Eddy">{{cite journal |author=Eddy DM |title = Practice Policies – Where Do They Come from?|journal=Journal of the American Medical Association |year=1990 |volume=263 |issue=9 |pages = 1265, 1269, 1272, 1275 |doi = 10.1001/jama.263.9.1265 |pmid=2304243 }}</ref>

Whether applied to medical education, decisions about individuals, guidelines and policies applied to populations, or administration of health services in general, evidence-based medicine advocates that to the greatest extent possible, decisions and policies should be based on evidence, not just the beliefs of practitioners, experts, or administrators. It thus tries to assure that a [[Medicine:Clinician|clinician]]'s opinion, which may be limited by knowledge gaps or biases, is supplemented with all available knowledge from the [[Scientific literature|scientific literature]] so that [[Best practice|best practice]] can be determined and applied. It promotes the use of formal, explicit methods to analyze evidence and makes it available to decision makers. It promotes programs to teach the methods to medical students, practitioners, and policymakers.

A process has been specified that provides a standardised route for those seeking to produce evidence of the effectiveness of interventions.<ref>{{citation |last=Vine |first=Jim |title=Standard for Producing Evidence – Effectiveness of Interventions – Part 1: Specification (StEv2-1) |publisher=HACT |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-911056-01-0 |at=[http://www.hact.org.uk/standards-evidence-housing Standards of Evidence]}}</ref> Originally developed to establish processes for the production of evidence in the housing sector, the standard is general in nature and is applicable across a variety of practice areas and potential outcomes of interest.

===Mental health===
To improve dissemination of evidence-based practices, the [http://www.abct.org/ Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT)] and the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology ([[Organization:Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology|SCCAP]], Division 53 of the [[Organization:American Psychological Association|American Psychological Association]])<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sccap53.org/|title=SCCAP Division 53 – The Society for Child Clinical and Adolescent Psychology}}</ref> maintain updated information on their websites on evidence-based practices in psychology for practitioners and the general public. An evidence-based practice consensus statement was developed at a summit on mental healthcare in 2018. As of June 23, 2019, this statement has been endorsed by 36 organizations.

===Metascience===
{{Main|Metascience}}
There has since been a movement for the use of evidence-based practice in conducting scientific research in attempt to address the [[Replication crisis|replication crisis]] and other major issues affecting scientific research.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rathi |first1=Akshat |title=Most science research findings are false. Here's how we can change that |url=https://qz.com/530064/most-science-research-findings-are-false-heres-how-we-can-change-that/ |website=Quartz |date=22 October 2015 |access-date=13 June 2019 |language=en}}</ref> The application of evidence-based practices to research itself is called [[Metascience|metascience]], which seeks to increase the quality of scientific research while reducing waste. It is also known as "research on research" and "the science of science", as it uses research methods to study how research is done and where improvements can be made. The five main areas of research in metascience are methodology, reporting, [[Reproducibility|reproducibility]], [[Scholarly peer review|evaluation]], and incentives.<ref name=Ioannidis2015>{{cite journal |last1=Ioannidis |first1=John P. A. |last2=Fanelli |first2=Daniele |last3=Dunne |first3=Debbie Drake |last4=Goodman |first4=Steven N. |title=Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices |journal=PLOS Biology |date=2 October 2015 |volume=13 |issue=10 |pages=e1002264 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 |pmid=26431313 |pmc=4592065 |issn=1544-9173 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Metascience has produced a number of reforms in science such as the use of study pre-registration and the implementation of [[EQUATOR Network|reporting guidelines]] with the goal of bettering scientific research practices.<ref>{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264| pmid = 26431313| pmc = 4592065| issn = 1545-7885| volume = 13| issue = 10| pages = –1002264| last1 = Ioannidis| first1 = John P. A.| last2 = Fanelli| first2 = Daniele| last3 = Dunne| first3 = Debbie Drake| last4 = Goodman| first4 = Steven N.| title = Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices| journal = PLOS Biology| date = 2015-10-02| doi-access = free}}</ref>

===Education===
{{Main|Evidence-based education}}

'''Evidence-based education''' (EBE), also known as ''evidence-based interventions'', is a model in which policy-makers and educators use empirical evidence to make informed decisions about education interventions (policies, practices, and programs).<ref>Trinder, L. and Reynolds, S. (eds) (2000) ''Evidence-Based Practice: A critical appraisal'', Oxford, Blackwell Science.</ref> In other words, decisions are based on scientific evidence rather than opinion.

EBE has gained attention since English author David H. Hargreaves suggested in 1996 that education would be more effective if teaching, like medicine, was a "research-based profession".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271952371|title=Knowledge creation as an approach to facilitating evidence informed practice: Examining ways to measure the success of using this method with early years practitioners in Camden (London)}}</ref>

Since 2000, studies in Australia, England, Scotland and the USA have supported the use of research to improve educational practices in teaching reading.<ref name="Teaching Reading">{{cite web |url=http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=2&article=1004&context=tll_misc&type=additional |title=Teaching Reading  |format=PDF |work= Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512233640/http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/0201-2006PDF-EN-01.pdf|title=Independent review of the teaching of early reading, 2006|access-date=2020-07-31|archive-date=2010-05-12|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512233640/http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/0201-2006PDF-EN-01.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |archive-url=https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20170114123124/http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383 |archive-date=2017-01-14 |title=Insight 17 - A seven year study of the effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment |publisher=IAC:ASU Schools |last1=Johnston |first1=Rhona S |last2=Watson |first2=Joyce E |issn=1478-6796 |url=http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383 }}</ref>

In 1997, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development convened a national panel to assess the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read. The resulting National Reading Panel examined quantitative research studies on many areas of reading instruction, including phonics and whole language. In 2000 it published a report entitled ''Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction'' that provided a comprehensive review of what was known about best practices in reading instruction in the U.S.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/summary.htm |title=National Reading Panel (NRP) – Publications and Materials – Summary Report |year=2000 |work=National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100610211113/http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/summary.htm |archive-date=2010-06-10 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/subgroups.htm |title=National Reading Panel (NRP) – Publications and Materials – Reports of the Subgroups |year=2000 |work=National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100611011153/http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/subgroups.htm |archive-date=2010-06-11 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/Documents/PRFbooklet.pdf|title=Teacher's Guide, Put Reading First - K-3, NICHD, edpubs@inet.ed.gov}}</ref>

This occurred around the same time as such international studies as the [[Organization:Programme for International Student Assessment|Programme for International Student Assessment]]  in 2000 and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in 2001.

Subsequently, evidence-based practice in education (also known as Scientifically based research), came into prominence in the U.S. under the No child left behind act of 2001, replace in 2015 by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

In 2002 the U.S. Department of Education founded the Institute of Education Sciences to provide scientific evidence to guide education practice and policy .

English author Ben Goldacre advocated in 2013 for systemic change and more [[Randomized controlled trial|randomized controlled trial]]s to assess the effects of educational interventions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/building-evidence-into-education|title=Building Evidence into Education|website=gov.uk}}</ref> In 2014 the National Foundation for Educational Research, Berkshire, England<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nfer.ac.uk/|title=Home|website=NFER}}</ref> published a report entitled ''Using Evidence in the Classroom: What Works and Why''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/impa01/impa01.pdf|title= Using Evidence in the Classroom: What Works and Why, Nelson, J. and O'Beirne, C. (2014). Slough: NFER. ISBN 978-1-910008-07-2}}</ref> In 2014 the [[Organization:British Educational Research Association|British Educational Research Association]] and the Royal Society of Arts advocated for a closer working partnership between teacher-researchers and the wider academic research community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-RSA-Interim-Report.pdf|title=The role of research in teacher education: reviewing the evidence-BERA-RSA, January 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bera.ac.uk/project/research-and-teacher-education|title=Research and Teacher Education|website=www.bera.ac.uk}}</ref>

====Reviews of existing research on education====
The following websites offer free analysis and information on education research:
* ''The Best Evidence Encyclopedia''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://bestevidence.org/|title=Best Evidence Encyclopedia|website=Best Evidence Encyclopedia}}</ref> is a free website created by the [[Organization:Johns Hopkins University|Johns Hopkins University]] School of Education's Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (established in 2004) and is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.  It gives educators and researchers reviews about the strength of the evidence supporting a variety of English programs available for students in grades [[Social:K–12|K–12]]. The reviews cover programs in areas such as ''Mathematics, Reading, Writing, Science, Comprehensive school reform, and Early childhood Education''; and includes such topics as ''effectiveness of technology and struggling readers''.
* ''The Education Endowment Foundation'' was established in 2011 by The Sutton Trust, as a lead charity in partnership with Impetus Trust, together being the government-designated What Works Centre for UK Education.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://educationendowmentfoundation.org/|title=Loading...|website=educationendowmentfoundation.org}}</ref>
* ''Evidence for the Every Student Succeeds Act''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.evidenceforessa.org|title=Evidence for ESSA}}</ref> began in 2017 and is produced by the Center for Research and Reform in Education<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://education.jhu.edu/crre/|title=Center for Research and Reform in Education|date=11 January 2024 }}</ref> at Johns Hopkins University School of Education. It offers free up-to-date information on current PK-12 programs in reading, writing, math, science, and others that meet the standards of the Every Student Succeeds Act (the United States K–12 public education policy signed by President Obama in 2015).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn|title=Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) &#124; U.S. Department of Education|website=www.ed.gov}}</ref> It also provides information on programs that do meet the Every Student Succeeds Act standards as well as those that do not.
* ''What Works Clearinghouse'',<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/|title=WWC &#124; Find What Works!|website=ies.ed.gov}}</ref> established in 2002, evaluates numerous educational programs, in twelve categories, by the quality and quantity of the evidence, and the effectiveness. It is operated by the federal National Center for Education Evaluation, and Regional Assistance, part of Institute of Education Sciences<ref name="auto"/>
* ''Social programs that work'' is administered by the Arnold Ventures LLC's Evidence-Based Policy team. The team is composed of the former leadership of the ''Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy'', a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization advocating the use of well-conducted ''[[Randomized controlled trial|randomized controlled trial]]s'' (RCTs) in policy decisions.<ref>http://toptierevidence.org/ Social programs that work</ref> It offers information on twelve types of social programs including education.

[[Evidence-based education#Other sources of information|A variety of other organizations]] offer information on research and education.

==See also==
{{col div|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Evidence-based assessment]]
* [[Evidence-based conservation]]
* [[Evidence-based dentistry]]
* [[Evidence-based design]]
* [[Evidence-based education]]
* [[Evidence-based legislation]]
* [[Evidence-based library and information practice]]
* [[Evidence-based management]]
* [[Medicine:Evidence-based medical ethics|Evidence-based medical ethics]]
* [[Medicine:Evidence-based medicine|Evidence-based medicine]]
* [[Evidence-based nursing]]
* [[Evidence-based pharmacy in developing countries]]
* Evidence-based philanthropy—effective altruism
* [[Evidence-based policing]]
* [[Evidence-based policy]]
* [[Evidence-based research]]—metascience
* [[Evidence-based scheduling]]
* [[Evidence-based toxicology]]
* [[Philosophy:Impact evaluation|Impact evaluation]]
{{colend}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{commons}}
* {{cite web|url=https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/residency/development-evidence-based-medicine-explored-oral-history-video |title= Development of evidence-based medicine explored in oral history video, AMA, JAN 27, 2014|date= 27 January 2014}}

{{Evidence-based practice}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Evidence-Based Practice}}
[[Category:Evidence-based practices| ]]
[[Category:Health care quality]]
[[Category:Scientific method]]

{{Sourceattribution|Evidence-based practice}}