PubMed · 11230027
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S M Lawrie, A I Scott, M C Sharpe. 2001. Implementing evidence-based psychiatry: whose responsibility?. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.178.3.195
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10-20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.
The continuing gap between research and practice has long been a problem in social work. A great deal of the empirical practice literature has emphasized practice evaluation (usually in the form of single-case methodologies) at the expense of research dissemination and utilization. An alternative focus for social work researchers can be found in the extensive theoretical and research literature on knowledge diffusion, technology transfer, and social marketing. Knowledge diffusion and social marketing theory is explored in terms of its relevance to social work education and practice, including a consideration of issues of culture and power. The authors present an integrated dissemination model for social work and use a case example to illustrate the practical application of the model. The OPTIONS (OutPatient Treatment In ONtario Services) project is an example of the effective dissemination of two research-based addiction treatment modalities to nearly 1,000 direct practice clinicians in Ontario, Canada.