Search

Community education and outreach programs should be evidence-based. This dictum seems at once warranted, welcome, and slightly platitudinous. However, the "evidence-based" movement's more narrow definition of evidence--privileging randomized controlled trials as the "gold standard"--has fomented much debate. Such debate, though insightful, often lacks grounding in actual practice. To address that lack, the purpose of the study presented in this paper was to examine what actually happens, in practice, when people support the implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs) or engage in related efforts to make non-formal education more "evidence-based." Focusing on three cases--two adolescent sexual health projects (one in the United States and one in Kenya) and one more general youth development organization--I used qualitative methods to address the questions: (1) How is evidence-based program and evidence-based practice work actually practiced? (2) What perspectives and assumptions about what non-formal education is are manifested through that work? and (3) What conflicts and tensions emerge through that work related to those perspectives and assumptions? Informed by theoretical perspectives on the intersection of science, expertise, and democracy, I conclude that the current dominant approach to making non-formal education more evidence-based by way of EBPs is seriously flawed., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Depression during pregnancy has been demonstrated to be predictive of low birthweight, prematurity, and postpartum depression. These adverse outcomes potentially have lasting effects on maternal and child well-being. Socio-economically disadvantaged women are twice as likely as middle-class women to meet diagnostic criteria for antenatal major depression (MDD), but have proven difficult to engage and retain in treatment. Collaborative care treatment models for depression have not been evaluated for racially/ethnically diverse, pregnant women on Medicaid receiving care in a public health system. This paper describes the design, methodology, culturally relevant enhancements, and implementation of a randomized controlled trial of depression care management compared to public health Maternity Support Services (MSS)., Methods: Pregnant, public health patients, >18 years with a likely diagnosis of MDD or dysthymia, measured respectively by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) or the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), were randomized to the intervention or to public health MSS. The primary outcome was reduction in depression severity from baseline during pregnancy to 18-months post-baseline (one-year postpartum)., Baseline Results: 168 women with likely MDD (96.4%) and/or dysthymia (24.4%) were randomized. Average age was 27.6 years and gestational age was 22.4 weeks; 58.3% racial/ethnic minority; 71.4% unmarried; 22% no high school degree/GED; 65.3% unemployed; 42.1% making <$10,000 annually; 80.4% having recurrent depression; 64.6% PTSD, and 72% unplanned pregnancy., Conclusions: A collaborative care team, including a psychiatrist, psychologist, project manager, and 3 social workers, met weekly, collaborated with the patients' obstetrics providers, and monitored depression severity using an electronic tracking system. Potential sustainability of the intervention within a public health system requires further study., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)