What Does Evidence-Informed Even Mean?

This is a longer read, because I want you to be informed.

I am sure that you have heard me say that, or read it somewhere on this site at some time or another, but what does it mean? Is it the same thing as "evidence-based"?

Let's wade through it.

Evidence-informed:

An evidence-informed practice is one that makes decisions by combining the best available research with professional experience, local context, and the values or lived experiences of the people affected.

It uses:

• Best Available Research

  • Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses

  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

  • Case Reports & Series

  • Background Info / Expert Opinion

• Clinical Expertise

• Patient Values & Preferences

What does that actually mean?

Evidence-informed means that a practitioner is aware that research may not exist for every unique scenario and that we use context, brains, and previous experiences to look for the best path forward.

Evidence-based:

Evidence-based uses a hierarchy. In order of importance:

• Best Available Research

  • Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses

  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

  • Case Reports & Series

  • Background Info / Expert Opinion

• Clinical Expertise

• Patient Values & Preferences

What does that actually mean?

It means that they stick to the order, and stick to what the research says.

What is the difference?

They use the same stuff, so what is the actual difference?

Since evidence-informed evolved (or devolved, depending on how you look at it) from evidence-based, look at how the hierarchy is used.

Evidence-based

• Looks only at science

• Asks "What does the highest-quality research prove?"

• Primary driver: Quantitative data and clinical trials

• Very strict: Rejects methods that lack high-level scientific proof.

• Systematic reviews and Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) as its "Gold Standard"

• If strong research doesn't exist, the practice / method is generally not recommended.

Evidence-informed

• Looks at science plus personal feelings and expert views

• Asks "What does the research suggest, and how does it fit this situation?"

• Primary driver: A blend of research, expert experience, and local context

• Flexible. Adapts methods to fit unique human or cultural needs

• A balanced matrix of research, community values, and feasibility as its standard

• If research is missing, relies on expert consensus and qualitative data.

Is one better than the other? I don't think so. To me, that would entirely depend on the "context" of the situation. They both have a place.

Which one am I?

Evidence-informed. Because yes, I am a licensed healthcare provider, but no, I am not a doctor. Massage therapy isn't the same context as prescribing medication or performing brain surgery. And, to put it bluntly, no one has ever died from not getting a massage. (and now I'll get beat up by one or more of my clients) I can't always use the evidence the way it was intended, because it wasn't designed with real-world use in mind. I do my best, though.

By listening to people with lived experience, I get to learn new things, become aware of practical barriers and how to navigate them, and shift clients from being passive "subjects" into active advocates in their own care. I get to see things the research leaves out. Like, a client going from living in their bed in pain, to now finding moments of joy.

I know that last part sounds "sappy", but it is true.

Now that you know two terms that you'll most likely never utter... what do you do with the information? You use it. Take advantage of it. You now have the scaffolding to determine if something is "fact or cap" (I think that is the term these days - I could totally be wrong. I did not look at the evidence.)

Evidence protects you from confident-sounding nonsense that could empty your wallet or cause you harm, mentally or physically.

Okay, that's enough of that. I'm sure your brain has exploded... if you even made it this far. If you want some beginning basics for gauging if something is legit or not, scroll below.

Go out there, drink water, and make good choices. -Jamie

---

Tips for doing your own research:

• What counts as a legit research site?

  • Things like the National Institutes of Health, PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, etc. There are quite a few. Choose wisely.

• What is not a legit site to base your research off of?

  • Social media - please don't rely on this as official information. To partially quote a line from Ice Age... "They'd sell their own mother for a grape".

  • Any site that is trying to sell you the thing.

  • Are they biased?

  • Google's AI. (Or any off-the-shelf AI - but for sure Google's)

• Ask these questions on everything:

  • Who is writing this?

  • What is their goal?

  • Are they selling the solution?

  • Who tested it?

  • Can you read those tests?

  • What question was the study actually designed to answer?

  • Is that question the same thing it is now claiming it proves?

Red Flags

• They're selling you the exact thing they're telling you works

• "A study found" with no study linked, named, or shown

• One dramatic before/after, one person, one time

• The claim has been repeated by fifty other accounts, word for word

• It explains a big effect with a tiny mechanism

• Urgency or secrecy language

• It's from years ago and just resurfaced

Green Flags

• They tell you where it came from

• They admit what it doesn't do

• The claim is modest

• Multiple unrelated sources say the same thing

• They're not selling you anything in the same breath

• It doesn't ask you to feel afraid or rushed to believe it right now

• It's actually kind of boring

Be specific. Add "research articles" or "legit research articles" when a brand name has taken over the search entirely.