Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a systematic approach to decision-making that integrates the best available research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values and preferences to optimize outcomes in health care, rehabilitation, and related fields. EBP aims to apply scientific knowledge in a practical, individualized manner, improving the quality of care and resource allocation.

Key Components:

Best Available Evidence – High-quality, relevant research findings, often drawn from peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, or clinical guidelines.
Clinical Expertise – The skills and experience of practitioners, including their ability to interpret research evidence and apply it to specific patient contexts.
Patient Values and Preferences – Consideration of individual goals, cultural backgrounds, expectations, and personal choices.

Semantics and Contemporary Use:
The terms "evidence-based medicine" and “evidence-based practice” are often used interchangeably, although the latter is more widely used by professionals who are not physicians. Sometimes “evidence-informed practice” is used, with the latter placing greater emphasis on blending evidence with contextual knowledge and professional reasoning.

Related Terms

Systematic Review
Evidence-based practice
Levels of evidence
Meta-analysis
P-value
Null Hypothesis
Vote-Counting
Regression to the Mean

Related Articles

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 4 parts of Evidence-Based Practice?

The four commonly recognized components of EBP are: (1) best available evidence, (2) clinical expertise, (3) patient/client values and preferences, and (4) the clinical environment or context in which care is delivered.

What are the 5 steps in Evidence-Based Practice?

The classic five-step process includes: (1) ask an answerable clinical question, (2) acquire the best evidence, (3) appraise the evidence for validity and relevance, (4) apply the evidence to practice, and (5) assess or evaluate the outcomes of that application.

How is EBP different from following clinical guidelines?

Clinical guidelines are one tool for young professionals. Evidence-based practice takes it a step further by integrating research with professional expertise and patient values.

Why is patient preference so important in EBP?

Ignoring patient values can lead to poor adherence, dissatisfaction, and ultimately worse outcomes, even if a treatment is supported by research.

Is EBP only about using research?

No. EBP combines research with practitioner knowledge and patient perspectives to guide personalized decisions. However, unless research has been published on a particular case, an approach cannot be considered evidence-based without consideration of the available research.

Where can practitioners find evidence to support EBP?

Resources include systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, research databases (e.g., PubMed), and continuing education programs.

History of Evidence-Based Practice

The origins of evidence-based practice can be traced back to the 19th century, when Florence Nightingale famously used data visualization and statistical analysis to demonstrate how sanitation reforms dramatically reduced mortality among soldiers in Crimean War hospitals. Around the same period, public health pioneers Edwin Chadwick in England and Lemuel Shattuck in the United States published influential reports linking unsanitary living conditions to high mortality rates, establishing a foundation for data-driven health policy.

In the 1970s, British epidemiologist Archie Cochrane criticized the lack of rigorous evidence guiding medical interventions and championed randomized controlled trials as the most reliable method for evaluating treatment effectiveness. His work inspired the creation of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, which set out to systematically organize and disseminate high-quality evidence to improve health care worldwide.

The modern formalization of evidence-based practice is largely credited to David Sackett and colleagues in the 1980s and 1990s, who developed a structured process for applying research to patient care. Sackett described evidence-based practice as “the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values” (Sackett et al., 2000), and “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” (Sackett et al., 1996). His five-step model, which includes asking a clinical question, acquiring the best evidence, appraising its validity, applying it to practice, and assessing outcomes, remains a cornerstone of EBP today.

Brookbush Institute's Contribution

The Brookbush Institute has contributed to the advancement of evidence-based practice by establishing the first comprehensively evidence-based education platform in the rehabilitation and human performance industry. Every course is developed through systematic reviews that encompass all available peer-reviewed and published original research, prioritizing conclusions that emerge directly from the data rather than imposing bias through a predefined clinical question. This distinctive methodology ensures unparalleled accuracy and a curriculum truly driven by optimizing patient and client outcomes. Furthermore, the Brookbush Institute integrates information science and decision-theoretic frameworks to systematically develop models for selecting the most effective interventions, grounded in comparative research and probabilistic optimization. These innovations reflect a commitment not only to disseminating evidence but also to transforming how evidence is gathered, synthesized, and applied in professional education and clinical practice.

Challenges and Critiques of Evidence-Based Practice

While EBP is often heralded as the gold standard in healthcare, it faces significant limitations in real-world implementation. Practitioners frequently face time and resource constraints, including limited access to research and the time required to search for and interpret evidence.

Additionally, many clinicians lack the necessary skills to objectively search, interpret objectively, and aggregate research data. Without these skills, clinicians may be vulnerable to interpretation errors, confirmation bias, and other common errors and fallacies (availability heuristic, recency bias, etc.).

There are also conceptual and ethical concerns around the nature of “evidence” used in EBP. Much of it derives from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are often limited in population diversity and may not be generalizable to marginalized groups or individuals with complex needs.

Furthermore, evidence synthesis tools like systematic reviews can be susceptible to publication bias, conflicts of interest, including industry funding, and variability in methodological rigor, which may lead to skewed conclusions.

Finally, the replication crisis in science has cast doubt on the reliability of published findings—from clinical interventions to pharmacotherapies—fueling calls for greater transparency, methodological diversity, and cross-validation of results before integrating evidence into practice.

Despite these challenges, it should be noted that evidence-based practice (perhaps with the additions asserted by the Brookbush Institute) is still the best approach currently available to ensure accuracy and optimal outcomes for patients.

Bibliography

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Bmj, 312(7023), 71-72.
Sackett D et al. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, 2nd edition. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 2000, p.1

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)