Reagon, Bellin and Boniface argue that traditional models of evidence-based practice focus too much on randomised controlled trials and neglect ‘the multiple truths of occupational therapy’ (Reagon et al 2010). This opinion piece points out several flaws in their argument, and suggests that it is unethical to rely on weaker evidence sources when higher quality evidence exists. Ironically, the evidence that they provide to support their argument regarding different types of evidence is itself very weak.
DrummondA (2010) The Elizabeth Casson Memorial Lecture 2010: ‘Jack of all trades and master of none’: the future of occupational therapy?British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73 (7), 292–99.
4.
GlasziouOVandenbrouckeJChalmersI (2004) Assessing the quality of research. British Medical Journal, 328 (7430), 39–41.
5.
GloverJIzzoDOdatoKWangL (2006) Evidence-based medicine pyramid. Dartmouth College and Yale University. Available at: http://ebmpyramid.org/preview.php Accessed 21.07.10.
6.
ReagonCBellinBBonifaceG (2010) Challenging the dominant voice: the multiple evidence sources of occupational therapy. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73 (6), 284–86.
