Social Welfare Research Resources

Non-Evidence-based sources

While these information sources do not meet the criteria for evidence, this kind of information can help you to get background information or context on a particular topic area, are typically easier to understand, and may include references to evidence-based research.

• Non-Evidence-based Expert Opinions: These can include commentary statements, speeches, or editorials written by prominent experts asserting ideas that are reached by conjecture, casual observation, emotion, religious belief, or ego
• Non-EBP guidelines: Practice guidelines that exist because of eminence, authority, eloquence, providence, or diffidence based approaches to healthcare
• News Articles: News articles are written by journalists for the general public and may report on or summarize research studies and outcomes
• Editorials: Opinions written by experts, non-experts, or regular folks that are published by news outlets, magazines, or academic journals
• Commentary: similar to an editorial, but it may be identified as a commentary, which can be an invited informal and non-reviewed short article pertaining to a particular concept or idea.
• Narrative literature review articles: Non-systematic and non-exhaustive survey of the literature on a specific topic. However, evidence synthesis review articles are considered to be a high degree of evidence by nature of their methodology (see critical appraisal tab).

Let's Talk about Review Articles

Review articles are common in health literature. They are typically overviews of literature found on topics, but do not go so far as to meet the methodological requirements for a Systematic Review.

These articles may contain some critical analysis, but will not have the rigorous criteria that a Systematic Review does. They can be used to demonstrate evidence, albeit they do not make a very strong case as they are secondary articles and not originally conducted observational or experimental research.

Observational Studies

These types of publications have the lowest evidence strength in the hierarchy. The evidence is largely anecdotal since they often lack a systematic methodology, have limited statistical sampling, even if the studies are in some instances empirical and verifiable. Examples of observational studies are:

• Individual Case Studies or Reports: Scientific articles that describe a single instance of an occurrence, treatment, phenomenon, infection, disease, etc. Typically these are based upon patient records
  • example: Thoele, K., Ferren, M., Moffat, L. et al. (2020). Development and use of a toolkit to facilitate implementation of an evidence-based intervention: a descriptive case study. Implement Sci Commun, 1(86). DOI:10.1186/s43058-020-00081-x
• Case Series or Case Control Studies: Articles outlining studies in which patients who already have a specific condition are compared with people who do not have the condition. The researcher looks back to identify factors or exposures that might be associated with the illness.  They often rely on medical records and patient recall for data collection.
  • example: Tone, J., Chelius, B. & Miller, Y.D. (2022). The effectiveness of a feminist-informed, individualised counselling intervention for the treatment of eating disorders: a case series study. J Eat Disord, 10(70). DOI:10.1186/s40337-022-00592-z
• Cohort Studies: Articles that identify a group of patients who are already taking a particular treatment or have an exposure, follow them forward over time, and then compare their outcomes with a similar group that has not been affected by the treatment or exposure being studied. Cohort studies are observational and not as reliable as randomized controlled studies, since the two groups may differ in ways other than in the variable under study
  • Choi, S., Bunting, A., Nadel, T., Neighbors, C. J., & Oser, C. B. (2023). Organizational access points and substance use disorder treatment utilization among Black women: a longitudinal cohort study. Health & Justice, 11(1), 1–12. DOI:10.1186/s40352-023-00236-7

Experimental Studies

• Non-Randomized Control Trials: Articles that describe the background, methods, procedures, results, etc. around a new therapy, treatment, drug, etc. in a clinical environment with an experimental group and a control group--all knowing what type of intervention they are receiving.
  • Example: Belenko, S., Dennis, M., Hiller, M., Mackin, J., Cain, C., Weiland, D., Estrada, B., & Kagan, R. (2022). The impact of juvenile drug treatment courts on substance use, mental health, and recidivism: Results from a multisite experimental evaluation. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 49(4), 436-455. DOI: 10.1007/s11414-022-09805-4

• Randomized Control Trials: Articles that present carefully planned experiments that introduce a treatment or exposure to study its effect on real patients. They include methodologies that reduce the potential for bias (randomization and blinding) and that allow for comparison between intervention groups and control (no intervention) groups.  A randomized controlled trial is a planned experiment and can provide sound evidence of cause and effect. 
  • Example:  Putnam-Hornstein, E., Prindle, J., & Hammond, I. (2021). Engaging Families in Voluntary Prevention Services to Reduce Future Child Abuse and Neglect: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Prevention Science, 22(7), 856–865. DOI:10.1007/s11121-021-01285-w

Critical Appraisal

"Critical appraisal is the process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge its trustworthiness, and its value and relevance in a particular context." Burls, A. (2009). What is critical appraisal? In What Is This Series: Evidence-based medicine. Available online at What is Critical Appraisal?

Examples of Critical Appraisal

Evidence synthesis reviews are types of critical appraisal. Examples of evidence synthesis reviews are scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis. To find these types of articles, search for "systematic review", "scoping review", or meta-analysis in the title. Learn more about conducting evidence synthesis reviews.

• Systematic Reviews: Articles that focus on a clinical topic and answer a well-defined research question. An exhaustive literature search is conducted to identify studies with sound methodology. The studies are reviewed, assessed for quality, and the results summarized according to the predetermined criteria of the review question. This is one of the most well-regarded types of evidence-based articles.
  • Example:  Kokorelias, K. M., PhD., Shiers-Hanley, J., Li, Z., & Hitzig, S. L., PhD. (2023/10//). A Systematic Review on Navigation Programs for Persons Living With Dementia and Their Caregivers. The Gerontologist, 63(8), 1341. DOI:10.1093/geront/gnac054

• Meta-Analysis: These articles are often done in conjunction with a systematic review. The research thoroughly examines a number of valid studies and mathematically combine the data results using accepted statistical methodology to report the results as if it were one large study. This is often considered one of the highest levels of evidence-based research.

  • ​Example:  Hans, B. B., Drozd, F., Olafsen, K., Nilsen, K. H., Linnerud, S., Kjøbli, J., & Jacobsen, H. (2023/08//). The effect of relationship-based interventions for maltreated children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 35(3), 1251-1271. doi:10.1017/S0954579421001164

• Evidence-Based Medicine Practice Guidelines: Recommended devices, treatments, therapies, interventions, drugs, practices, protocols, etc. that are considered "best practices" which are supported by rigorous standards of evidence. These are more common in medicine that social work.
  • Example:  After thorough testing and experimentation, researchers, doctors, and product developers created and started using less-invasive oxygen monitoring devices to improve recovery times after surgeries. These are now standard equipment.