Novel unsupported and empirically supported therapies: patterns of usage among licensed clinical social workers.

Background: While considerable attention has been focused in recent years on evidence-based practice, less attention has been placed on clinical social workers' choice to use ineffective or harmful interventions, referred to in the present paper as Novel Unsupported Therapies (NUSTs).
Method: The present study surveyed 400 Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSWs) across the United States in order to determine the extent of their usage of NUSTs, as well as their usage of conventional therapies that lacked support and empirically supported therapies (ESTs). Reasons for selecting interventions were also assessed.
Results: While the vast majority (97.5%) reported using some form of EST, 75% of our sample also reported using at least one NUST. Logistic regression analysis revealed that NUST usage was related to female gender and trauma specialization. A split plot ANOVA revealed that respondents rated positive clinical experience higher than published research as a reason for selecting an intervention. LCSWs with a CBT theoretical orientation rated research evidence more highly than those of other theoretical orientations. However, even within the group of LCSWs with a CBT orientation, clinical experience was rated more highly than research evidence.
Conclusions: Implications for practice are discussed.