Barriers and facilitators of evidence‐based practice perceived by behavioral science health professionals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress in implementing evidence-based behavioral practices has been slow. A qualitative study was performed to characterize the major facilitators and barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) perceived by behavioral professionals. Members of professional e-mail listservs were queried and 84 barriers and 48 facilitators were nominated by 37 respondents. Thematic analysis revealed seven themes to describe both barriers and facilitators: (a) training, (b) attitudes, (c) consumer demand, (d) logistical considerations, (e) institutional support, (f) policy, and (g) evidence. Most frequently cited barriers included negative attitudes about EBP and lack of training. Barriers also reflected confusion between EBP and the products of EBP (i.e., empirically supported treatments [ESTs]). Main facilitators included a growing evidence base. Results suggest that uptake of EBP may be facilitated by education and training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.084 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it