a community of practitioners

The Misuse of the Phrase "Evidence-Based" in Course Descriptions

Therapists should be aware that there is a good likelihood that this term has (and will continue to be) used as a marketing tool for course descriptions. I've seen *evidence* of this for at least 3 different courses. One was for for a modality in which the general claims are most definitely not evidence-based. The others were for online courses in which some research articles were referred to which were obviously cherry picked.

I don't want to go into describing what an evidence-based practice is since this has already been covered in other discussions on this site. I suggest that anyone that is unclear about this read this description of it (with attention paid to "Best available research evidence (as determined by critical appraisal)")

What I do want to highlight is that there may be some teachers that are:

- not really aware of what "evidence-based" means

- don't really care what it means

- have their own definition (e.g.I have enough *evidence* in my practice to teach it and therefore I can use that term)

- OK with cherry picking studies and calling a course "evidence-based". This is probably one of the worst things any educator can do.

- use it as a marketing strategy to try to lure therapists who want to be well informed by research in order to improve their therapeutic decision making (in which case, the therapist should be commended, but be aware of what may be happening).

There is a lot of freedom given to teachers within our profession as far as how things can be described and taught, along with what claims can be made. I'm not saying that all or most teachers don't care, but the fact that I've seen courses that are not evidence-based means that at least some are doing this and there will more than likely be more join them.

My advice to any therapist is that if you want to really seek out teachers that are evidence-based, be extra careful when coming across the term in course descriptions. Take a research literacy course and be sure to become well accustomed to be able to seek out the best available evidence for whatever modality (or massage for a specific condition, which we should be doing in our practices anyway - the only problem is that most of us aren't taught to do so) before investing money and time in a class.

Perhaps down the road there will be some mechanism in place that will prevent the use of the term in such a loose way, but if not, then consumers of courses should be extra vigilant.

Cheers.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Noel Norwick on May 30, 2011 at 5:30pm

Vlad: If you truly don't have your own frame of critical thinking, what led you to accept/promotet Bodhi's?

Vlad said:

I'm not going to comment on your post, Boris.

I'm going to wait to see if anyone else does.

If no one has anything to say about it, then I'll not bother posting on this thread anymore.

By the way, I don't have my own *frame* of critical thinking. I'm not in the habit of coming up with my own definition of concepts.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on May 30, 2011 at 5:49pm

What?

So there are not only different types of EBP (some of which include Reflexology, apparently), now *critical thinking* is now tied to a person, from which another person will somehow take on (cos what *they say really counts* or maybe it's a case of *them be the smart people and me want be look smart*).

This really takes it all.

Drive off the EBP people with your craziness and then take on the phrase "Evidence-based" for your own benefit, turning into something that doesn't mean anything.

At the same time, criticize me for *taking on critical thinking from someone else* (which is a contradiction in terms, and anyone with a basic understanding would know that), when I'm trying to highlight the fact that therapists are probably having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Here's a question:

If everything becomes "evidence-based", how are you going to identify the evil people? You guys are going to have to come up with a different label for them (and Bodhi will have to change the name of his group on here).

By the way, I don't consider myself evidence-based. I'm not particularly fond of the guru-worshipping that goes on in our industry either. There's a helluva lot of it that goes on here though. Apparently people like gurus, so I'm in a minority there.

But hey, I'm just taking on someone else's frame of mind here. So no worries.

Hey everyone, just ignore what I say about critical thinking (and teachers - don't try to bring it in to your classes), just keep everyone dumb and keep on selling your classes. It's all good.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on May 30, 2011 at 6:11pm

Hi Vlad.

you said:If everything becomes "evidence-based", how are you going to identify the evil people?

I agree with you. If one pushing some "not real" teaching then one is evil. And I call this one evil because, students who will trust her/ him then will apply learned techniques on clients, and in best case scenario, will be not able to help clients , which is terrible but worse if techniques are dangerous and can cause some injuries. where I am disagree with you is the proposed way how to fight this evil,by taking classes how to read research literature,as well your views on evidence base therapy.I believe that I found a good way how to introduce my teaching and to allow prospective students to choose or to reject my workshops.in descriptions I offering details as well many times staying on front of the camera, introducing myself ,my background,as well show pretty long fragment from hands-on training that one will decide to take. Maybe this is the way to fight evil people. Have no idea. Just did choose it for myself.

Regards

Boris

Vlad said:

What?

So there are not only different types of EBP (some of which include Reflexology, apparently), now *critical thinking* is now tied to a person, from which another person will somehow take on (cos what *they say really counts* or maybe it's a case of *them be the smart people and me want be look smart*).

This really takes it all.

Drive off the EBP people with your craziness and then take on the phrase "Evidence-based" for your own benefit, turning into something that doesn't mean anything.

At the same time, criticize me for *taking on critical thinking from someone else* (which is a contradiction in terms, and anyone with a basic understanding would know that), when I'm trying to highlight the fact that therapists are probably having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Here's a question:

If everything becomes "evidence-based", how are you going to identify the evil people? You guys are going to have to come up with a different label for them (and Bodhi will have to change the name of his group on here).

By the way, I don't consider myself evidence-based. I'm not particularly fond of the guru-worshipping that goes on in our industry either. There's a helluva lot of it that goes on here though. Apparently people like gurus, so I'm in a minority there.

But hey, I'm just taking on someone else's frame of mind here. So no worries.

Hey everyone, just ignore what I say about critical thinking (and teachers - don't try to bring it in to your classes), just keep everyone dumb and keep on selling your classes. It's all good.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on May 30, 2011 at 6:26pm

I meant the "evil" reference as a joke, Boris (Since the evidence-based supporters have pretty much been demonized on this site).

Since no one seems to be objecting to the use of "evidence-based" when applied to reflexology, I don't think there's much point in me saying anything else. You've won them over here and no one seems to have any problem with it (except me). Since the majority and authority seems to be the way things are *won* on this site, I concede.

I'll not bother adding to this thread any more.

Have a good rest of the day.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on May 30, 2011 at 9:03pm

Vlad.in your mind discussion is all about win or lose.discussion is about, to exchange opinions, in order to learn and in some cases to look for solutions. I didn't regret to offer my opinions at this thread because I believe that this discussion had some issues to learn from, as well I am not regret that you decided not to bother adding to this thread any more,because you see threads for one purpose and only,to win or loose.I believe you can not win your" victories" because for some reasons you feeling superior to members of this site and if no one following you then they don't "deserve you". My belief you have nothing to offer, that's why people not following you. Simple nothing but seeing solution for problem of our industry is to read research literacy.honestly as much I could see some tension in discussions on this site, you always took part of it.

regards.

Boris

Vlad said:

I meant the "evil" reference as a joke, Boris (Since the evidence-based supporters have pretty much been demonized on this site).

Since no one seems to be objecting to the use of "evidence-based" when applied to reflexology, I don't think there's much point in me saying anything else. You've won them over here and no one seems to have any problem with it (except me). Since the majority and authority seems to be the way things are *won* on this site, I concede.

I'll not bother adding to this thread any more.

Have a good rest of the day.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on May 30, 2011 at 10:03pm

Boris,

I didn't realize that I feel superior to people on this site. I was aiming to try to let people know something - reflexology could never be classified as "evidence-based" to anyone that knows what the phrase means. But thanks for letting me know that I have nothing to offer. I'll take your word for it. Since no one else seems to be saying anything, I'll take it that you're right and my interpretation of the phrase is obviously wrong, along with any definitions of it that I've read. It's good to know.

Thanks again. Good luck in your classes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on May 30, 2011 at 10:35pm

even we understood meaning of "evidence-based"differently, at discussion I have explained my understanding.you start this discussion supposedly to help massage therapists not to take" false"classes which is most likely can be useful topic to discuss. But finally and first time during this discussion you said:"I was aiming to try to let people know something - reflexology could never be classified as "evidence-based" to anyone that knows what the phrase means."

To achieving results is not "about reflexology could never be classified as "evidence-based"" but about to place your hand

and provide real stimulation to awake positive changes in functions of organs and system. Even if you do not believe that by stimulating particular areas/zons on foot one corresponding with particular internal organs, please be aware that massage on toes and foot is known in conventional massage as an biologically active area to depress sympathetic activities.and this fact will be not changed if you have read about it or not.

regards.

Boris

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Noel Norwick on May 31, 2011 at 10:02am

Vlad: FYI - Your position is not helped by use of Ad Hominem attacks [i.e. "your craziness" & "evil people"]. I respectfully suggest that in future you consider identifying your foundational premises and offering logically consistent responses to questions raised by people who wish to better understand your perspective and opinions.

Though one may reasonably disagree with Reflexology's past & currently proposed causal mechanism(s), working on the feet (and in some variants, the hands and ears), its practitioners produce positive client outcomes with sufficient regularity that this modality can logically be considered and defended as being "evidence based".

Do you disagree that the scientific method requires one to propose testable hypothesis, test them, and then use the finding to continually refine one's understanding of reality's causal mechanisms? Or, that "evidence-based" practice is subject to constant change in light of new information uncovered by diligent research and clinical findings?

Additionally, even if you truly believe massaging the feet cannot initiate a physiologic response, you would do well to note that mainstream medicine considers the placebo/nocebo effect to be evidence based and worthy of serous research.