Use of Evidence in the Implementation of Social Programs: A Qualitative Study from Chile

Abstract

Through this qualitative, empirical study the authors aim to explore and describe the sources of knowledge that are used to guide intervention practice by social workers in Chile. Particular attention was paid to factors that may facilitate or hinder the use of research-based evidence to guide social interventions design, implementation, and outcome evaluation. In order to explore these issues, 25 semi-structured interviews with social workers from Chilean social service non-profit organizations were conducted. The main findings suggest that social workers do not use research-based evidence to support their social interventions due to various personal organizational constraints (e.g., lack of time, lack of access to resources for disseminating evidence, lack of English command). In addition, no evaluation processes of social programs which will support evidence-based effectiveness could be found. One key barrier to support use of evidence and evidence production may be related to the fact that most non-governmental organizations maintain a hierarchical and vertical relationship with state agencies (program design, oversight, and funding) for social program development.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: a systematic review

“…In the research employing qualitative methods, 4 studies included a sample of 1–10 practitioners [ 61 , 65 , 74 , 77 ], 16 studies included a sample of 11–50 practitioners [ 30 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 64 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 71 – 73 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 84 , 85 ], 2 studies included a sample of 51–75 practitioners [ 20 , 70 ], and 3 studies investigated more than 100 participants [ 31 , 51 , 67 ] (Fig. 2 ).…”

“…The majority of the included research was conducted in the United States (US) (28/31) [ 20 , 30 , 31 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 61 , 64 – 67 , 69 – 81 , 83 – 85 ], with three studies being conducted in Chile [ 68 ], Puerto Rico [ 50 ], and Australia [ 82 ]. Most studies (23/31) referred to the included organisations as ‘community-based organisations’ (CBOs) [ 20 , 30 , 31 , 48 – 51 , 61 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 69 – 72 , 74 – 76 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 85 ], with five studies using the term ‘non-profits’ [ 52 , 66 , 68 , 73 , 77 ], two referring to its included sample as ‘churches’ [ 79 , 84 ] (in the US, churches are considered non-profits), and one study denoting its included organisations as NGOs [ 82 ].…”

“…All included studies investigated EBIs in the context of health and social outcomes, including addiction [ 31 , 51 , 64 , 67 , 83 , 86 ], HIV [ 20 , 30 , 49 , 65 , 69 , 71 , 75 , 76 ], exercise [ 66 , 70 , 73 , 74 ], social work [ 68 ], cancer education [ 85 ], parenting [ 77 ], nutrition [ 79 , 84 ], and with a number of studies focusing on mixed types of health EBIs [ 48 , 50 , 52 , 72 , 82 , 85 ] (see Table 1 ). Nine studies focused on factors influencing the implementation of interventions from the diffusion of evidence-based interventions (DEBI) programme by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [ 20 , 30 , 49 , 65 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 76 , 78 ], and six studies investigated EBIs designed by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (SAMHSA/CSAT) [ 31 , 51 , 64 , 67 , 83 , 86 ].…”