Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work and Nursing
Self-study course · at your own pace · with a confirmation of participation.
2. Module 1 · Knowledge that holds up: what evidence-based practice means
- You can state the definition of evidence-based medicine by Sackett et al. (1996) and explain it in your own words.
- You can distinguish the building blocks of an evidence-based decision (evidence, condition and circumstances, preferences, professional expertise) and explain why evidence alone does not settle anything.
- You can distinguish external and internal evidence in the sense of evidence-based nursing and assign examples to each.
- You can break down an everyday decision from practice into its building blocks and classify statements as evidence, experience, preference, circumstance or tradition (application).
- You can present the pro and contra lines of the debate on evidence-based social work fairly and judge the reach of professional ethics and a professional code of conduct.
When people in your studies and in practice talk about “evidence-based practice”, they all mean something similar – and yet not quite the same thing. In this module you clarify where the term comes from, what building blocks an evidence-based decision is made of, and why it is read and discussed differently in nursing and in social work. To start, a question for you: when did you last hear the sentence “That is scientifically proven” or “We have always done it this way” – and how did you tell whether the statement held up?
What you will be able to do afterwardsYou can break down a practice decision into its building blocks, and you can cite the term evidence-based practice properly and place it critically in term papers, presentations and timed written papers.
PART 1 – Knowledge that holds up: introduction and key terms
A situation you know
Imagine you are sitting in a team meeting at your placement. Someone suggests an approach, and when you ask why, you hear something like “That is just how we do it here” or “There are studies on that”. Both sentences sound confident, yet they say very different things about the foundation of a decision. This is exactly where the idea of evidence-based practice comes in: it asks what we rely on when we act professionally, and how clear this basis is to others – including the people we work with.
For your studies this is more than a buzzword. When you write a term paper, prepare a presentation or have to explain in your practical placement why a service makes sense, you need exactly these terms: evidence, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based nursing, evidence-based social work. This first module lays the foundation. In Module 2 you turn practice questions into search questions, in Module 3 you get to know study designs, and in the following modules you search, read studies critically and place guidelines in context.
One more note on the role of this course: it is a self-study course and companion material for your studies. It does not replace any lecture or seminar, any university examination or any practical placement. You can work through all tasks at your own pace and reflect on them yourself using the expandable hints; there is no submission of work and no feedback from teaching staff.
What “evidence” means – and what it does not
The German word “Evidenz” can easily be misleading. In everyday German it sounds like “obvious” or “proven”. In English usage, evidence means rather a piece of proof or an indication that can carry more or less weight. In the technical language of this course, evidence therefore means findings that come from research, were obtained in a transparent way, and whose strength varies depending on the type and quality of the study. Evidence is thus not a seal of truth but an offer of justification that you have to put in context.
The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), a legally commissioned and professionally independent institute, describes this in its General Methods as follows: anyone who invokes evidence-based medicine for health questions relies not on opinions alone but on findings obtained with scientific methods that are as objective as possible. Evidence-based medicine rests on a collection of scientific tools and strategies (IQWiG, 2025). The difference between opinion and methodically obtained knowledge is the core – not an opposition between “study” and “gut feeling”.
Evidence is not the same as proof. In term papers, “it has been proven that …” quickly sounds overstated. Phrasings such as “the body of evidence suggests that …” or “the available findings indicate …” are more precise and show that you understand evidence as a matter of degree.
Figure 1 gives you an overview of the core concept before we take it apart step by step. The mind map shows five branches: the definition, the building blocks of a decision, the nursing-science view of evidence-based nursing, the debate in social work, and the anchoring in the profession. You can later use the figure as a map when you get lost in the literature.
The classic definition by Sackett et al. (1996)
The classic definition goes back to Sackett et al. (1996). According to it, evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best external evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Practising evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external evidence (Sackett et al., 1996). A German-language rendering of this definition can be found in the IQWiG methods paper (IQWiG, 2025), which you can use well as a German-language source in term papers.
Because definitions are often taken apart word by word in timed written papers, a reading aid is worthwhile. Conscientious means: careful and not casual. Explicit means: the basis of a decision is named rather than merely working in the background. Judicious refers to weighing up the individual case. Current best is a reminder that the state of knowledge changes, and external means findings from outside the specific situation, i.e. not your own experience on the spot. This reading aid is a didactic explanation of the terms, not an additional statement by the authors.
Particularly important: the definition has two halves. It names not only the best available evidence but equally the individual expertise of the professional. Anyone who shortens evidence-based practice to the sentence “We follow study results” therefore already misses the original definition. That the definition comes from medicine and refers to individual patients is at the same time the starting point for the question of how well the idea can be transferred to nursing and social work – more on this in Part 3 and Part 5.
PART 2 – Foundations: the building blocks of an evidence-based decision
Four building blocks instead of “study equals answer”
IQWiG describes evidence-based decisions as a combination of three elements: the evidence, the clinical condition and circumstances of a person, and their preferences and attitudes. Clinical expertise brings these elements together (IQWiG, 2025; Section 1.3.1 of the General Methods). Figure 2 shows this as overlapping circles: professional expertise does not stand beside the building blocks but in their middle, because it weighs them up and justifies the decision.
IQWiG writes about health decisions; the term “clinical condition” therefore comes from medicine. For social work and everyday nursing practice you can sensibly translate it as the situation of the person and their environment: state of health, housing situation, social relationships, resources. You make this transfer yourself and should flag it as such in a piece of work.
The building blocks one by one
Evidence. This means findings from research, for example from studies or from reviews that bring several studies together. How robust they are is a question in its own right. IQWiG names three aspects on which the certainty of results of clinical studies primarily depends: internal validity, external validity and statistical precision (IQWiG, 2025). In everyday terms: first, whether an observed difference really goes back to the intervention studied and not to something else (internal validity). Second, whether the results can be transferred to other people and situations (external validity). Third, how precisely the effect was estimated, that is, how much chance may still play a part (statistical precision). IQWiG also reports that random allocation of participants to comparison groups, randomisation, increasingly became an internationally accepted standard from the beginning of the 1960s (IQWiG, 2025). You will learn more about which study design suits which question in Module 3, and how to recognise bias in Module 5.
Condition and circumstances. The same intervention can mean something quite different for two people, because health, housing situation, support network and everyday life differ. This building block prevents general findings from turning into a template that overlooks the individual case.
Preferences and attitudes. What matters to the person, what do they reject, what experiences do they bring? That IQWiG names preferences as an element in their own right is remarkable: according to this understanding they are not a disturbing factor to be considered after the “actual” professional decision, but an equal building block of the decision.
Professional expertise. It brings the elements together. This includes knowledge and experience, but also the ability to put evidence in context: does the group studied match the person sitting in front of me? Are there indications of side effects or burdens? Where are the gaps? Expertise therefore does not mean replacing evidence but using it responsibly.
Evidence-based nursing: external and internal evidence
In nursing, the idea is taken up as evidence-based nursing. It bases nursing decisions on two sources of knowledge (general professional knowledge in nursing science). External evidence is systematically gained, scientifically secured experience of others. Internal evidence is the individual needs and experiences of the people who need care and of the nurses themselves. This raises the perspective of those affected to the rank of a source of knowledge – an idea that fits the building block “preferences”.
The approach sees itself as a process. The steps range from shared decision-making and the formulation of the problem, through searching and critically appraising the literature found, to changing practice and evaluating it. We pick up exactly this sequence of steps in Module 2, when it comes to the cycle and the search question.
Do not confuse “internal evidence” with “internal validity”. Internal evidence means the knowledge from the lived reality of the people involved. Internal validity, by contrast, describes a quality question about a study: does the difference found really go back to the intervention? Both terms appear in this module but mean completely different things.
Three terms compared
The table and comparison cards (Figure 3) set side by side the three terms that often blur into one another in your reading: evidence-based medicine, evidence-based nursing, and evidence-based or evidence-informed social work.
- Starting point: decisions in the care of individual patients
- Building blocks according to IQWiG: evidence, condition and circumstances, preferences, expertise
- Stumbling block: shortening it to “following studies”
- Starting point: nursing decisions
- Double knowledge base: external and internal evidence
- Process from formulating the problem to evaluation
- Stumbling block: confusing internal evidence with internal validity
- Starting point: what knowledge does the profession need?
- Pro line, critical line and mediating positions
- Stumbling block: presenting one position as “the” social work
PART 3 – Social work and nursing: debate, professional ethics and code of conduct
Evidence-based social work – a debated concept
Unlike in medicine, “evidence-based practice” is not a self-evident term in German-language social work but the subject of a controversial professional debate. The main lines of this debate are presented here as general professional knowledge. For your own work it is important to present them fairly and without attributing them to individual people.
Supporting positions stress the importance of randomised outcome studies: if professionals want to show that a service achieves something, methodically controlled knowledge is needed. Critical positions point to a technology deficit of social interaction – meaning that social processes cannot be reliably steered according to the pattern “right cause, certain effect”. They also see the transferability of causal models to social practice as limited and voice concerns about professional autonomy if evidence is understood as a requirement. Mediating positions lie in between. A productive way of handling the debate begins with taking the arguments of both sides seriously: even those who stress the technology deficit need good reasons for their actions; and those who favour outcome studies must explain how results fit individual cases.
Important for term papers and presentations: the arguments of the debate are described here as main lines, not as positions of individual authors. If you want to attribute an argument to a person, you have to read the respective primary text and cite it precisely.
“Evidence-based” or “evidence-informed”?
Besides “evidence-based”, you will come across the expression “evidence-informed” in social work. Linguistically, it stresses that evidence flows into a decision and informs it, but does not settle it on its own. This fits the building blocks from Part 2, because the definition by Sackett et al. (1996) also requires expertise in addition. How sharply the two expressions are distinguished from each other can vary from text to text; the term “evidence-informed” cannot be attributed here to any particular person. My tip for your work: briefly explain how you use the terms, and support your usage with the sources you have actually read.
Anchoring in professional ethics: DBSH
The professional association for social work also comments on the relationship between ethics and knowledge. The professional ethics of the German Professional Association for Social Work (DBSH) has been available in a second edition since December 2024; the first version dates from 2014. It names respect for people’s autonomy as well as justice and solidarity as basic principles, links ethics and professional competence, and assumes that the practical competence of social work rests on scientifically secured knowledge (DBSH, 2024).
Why do knowledge and ethics belong together here? One answer is: scientifically secured knowledge makes professional decisions justifiable and comprehensible to service users. Respect for autonomy at the same time requires that people are involved in decisions and are not merely recipients of the “best knowledge”. Both ideas stand side by side in the professional ethics – this is an interpretation that you should flag as such in your work. It is also important that the professional ethics is the position of a professional association and not a law. It does not create a legal obligation but a professional self-understanding.
Anchoring in the code of conduct: NRW Chamber of Nursing
In nursing, the code of conduct of the Chamber of Nursing of North Rhine-Westphalia (Pflegekammer Nordrhein-Westfalen) is a statute that explicitly takes up the idea. This is a special feature that you need to place precisely, because it is easily overestimated.
The code of conduct of the Chamber of Nursing of North Rhine-Westphalia of 26 June 2025 (MB. NRW. 2025 No. 68) provides in section 19(1): “Pflegehandeln soll auf Grundlage von evidenzbasiertem Wissen geschehen.” [Nursing practice should be based on evidence-based knowledge.] In addition, section 3(1) commits members to the generally recognised state of nursing-science, medical and other related-science knowledge, section 5 to continuing professional training, and section 15(1) to safeguarding the right to self-determination (Pflegekammer NRW, 2025). The code of conduct applies only to chamber members in North Rhine-Westphalia – not nationwide and not to social work. Legal status: October 2026. This course does not fulfil any obligation to undertake further training. Professionals do not give legal advice in individual cases and act in the team and according to the procedures of their organisation.
Two reading tips will help you. First, section 19(1) is worded as a “should” provision; what legal consequences follow from it in an individual case is not a topic of this module. Second, taking sections 3, 15 and 19 together shows that the code of conduct can be read as a combination of the scientific state of knowledge and self-determination – a double idea similar to the definition by Sackett et al. (1996) and the building block “preferences”. This code of conduct does not apply to registered nurses (Pflegefachpersonen) in other federal states; whether and how similar rules exist there is not covered here. The same applies to professional groups outside the chamber: for social workers, the DBSH professional ethics is an important statement of position, but likewise not a law.
Current developments at a glance
Three current developments frame the topic: first, the code of conduct of the Chamber of Nursing of North Rhine-Westphalia was adopted on 26 June 2025; its section 19(1) names evidence-based knowledge as the basis of nursing practice, but applies only to chamber members in NRW. Second, the DBSH professional ethics has been available since December 2024 in a second, fully revised and expanded edition. Third, the nursing degree under the Nursing Professions Act (Pflegeberufegesetz) has been paid and funded since 2024 (Destatis, 2026b). From the world of methods there is one more: IQWiG Methods version 8.0 of 19 December 2025 contains for the first time a chapter of its own on how those affected, or representatives of patient organisations, are involved (IQWiG, 2025). In this way the idea of participation also moves further into the foreground in methodology itself; we look at this in more depth in Module 7.
On the nursing degree, the Federal Statistical Office gives the following official figures (Destatis, 2026b):
These figures merely describe orders of magnitude of the nursing degree under the Nursing Professions Act. They say nothing about how evidence-based work is done in practice or how good care is; such conclusions would not be supported. Figure 4 places the developments mentioned in time: from randomisation as an accepted standard in the 1960s, via the EBM definition in 1996 and the debate in social work, to the changes of 2024 and 2025.
PART 4 – In practice: breaking down decisions, classifying statements, applying
Worked example: “Which support suits Ms K.?”
Theory becomes tangible when you work through it with an example. We break down a typical everyday decision step by step into the building blocks from Part 2. The starting situation is fictional: Ms K. lives alone in her flat and is supported by a community-based team. The team asks itself: which support suits Ms K.? From the team’s point of view there are two forms to choose from – a regular visiting service and a group activity outside the home. Important: the example deliberately makes no statement about which of the two forms “works better”; it is about the steps of thinking, not about an effect. Figure 5 shows the sequence.
Step 1 – Clarify the question. “What suits?” is too vague. The team first clarifies together with Ms K. what should improve – for example more contact with other people or more security in everyday life. Only with this goal can you judge whether an option fits at all. This corresponds to the beginning of the process in evidence-based nursing: shared decision-making and formulation of the problem.
Step 2 – Determine the evidence. Here you first record what kind of knowledge is needed: findings from studies or reviews on which groups of people, and under which conditions, such forms of support achieve something. In the example we use no finding. This is itself a lesson: sometimes a team finds that suitable evidence is missing or still has to be searched for. This too explicitly belongs in the justification – “we did not find a suitable study” is an honest and professionally legitimate statement.
Step 3 – Condition and circumstances. The team gathers what matters for the specific situation: how mobile is Ms K.? How accessible is her flat? Which people belong to her environment? This information is not “extra”, but a building block in its own right. Anyone who overlooks the housing situation might suggest an option that cannot be put into practice in everyday life at all.
Step 4 – Ask about preferences. Ms K. says (fictional) that she dislikes sitting in large groups, but likes having conversations and values fixed times. This is internal evidence in the sense of evidence-based nursing: her needs and experiences. What matters is not to guess what she might want but to ask her and record her answer.
Step 5 – Bring together. Now the team’s professional expertise brings the building blocks together. It is possible that the team chooses the option that best fits Ms K.’s preferences and circumstances – even if more studies should exist for the other option. The justification is what counts: what was known, what was missing, what tipped the balance? The result is documented, and the team agrees when it will review, together with Ms K., whether the decision holds up. In this way the circle closes with evaluation.
What the example shows: evidence is a building block, not a verdict. The same body of evidence can lead to different, equally well-justified decisions for two people.
Two case studies from practice
Julia and the question about effectiveness. Julia Lorenz is doing her practice semester at a provider of integration assistance (Eingliederungshilfe). In the team meeting, a representative of the relatives asks why the organisation’s group activity “works”. Julia notices that the team has many positive reactions and observations, but nobody knows of a study. Instead of claiming that the service is proven to be effective, she says: “We know from observation and from feedback from participants what matters to them. Whether there are studies on this, I do not know – we could find out.” Later she agrees with her practice supervisor to define the question more precisely (see Module 2) and to search for studies (see Module 4).
To put it in context: Julia distinguishes between observation and experience on the one hand and evidence on the other, without devaluing experience. Nothing is claimed here about the actual effect of the service. Saying honestly what you know and what you do not is part of professional integrity.
Max and the sentence “We have always done it this way”. Max Baumann is a newcomer to home-care nursing (ambulante Pflege). About a routine in the sequence of home visits, he asks for the reason and hears: “We have always done it this way.” Max feels unsure but does not want to put anyone on the spot. At the next team round he asks in a friendly way: “Where does this approach come from – is there a reason I do not know yet?” His colleagues explain that part of it has organisational reasons and another part is based on experience in the team. Nobody can immediately name a professional source. Max notes the open question, and the team plans to take it up in a later conversation. Until then, Max works according to the procedures of his organisation.
To put it in context: Tradition is not automatically wrong, but it is a justification that can be made visible. Max asks a question out of curiosity rather than making an accusation, and continues to act in the team according to the organisation’s procedures. Whether a robust body of evidence exists for the approach remains open; the example makes no statement on this.
Classifying statements: the matrix
In everyday work you come across statements of very different origins. Figure 6 helps you classify them. The matrix is our own didactic arrangement and not a model from the literature: the columns ask whether a statement applies to many cases or to this person, the rows whether it is traceably backed up or asked about, or merely customary or experienced. This gives four fields – evidence, preferences and circumstances, tradition and single experience. In the middle stands professional expertise again, mediating between the fields. Single experience is not “worthless” here: it can be a reason to ask questions that you then compare with evidence.
Assign each of the six statements to one category: evidence, experience, preference, circumstance or tradition. The statements are fictional; they deliberately contain no real study findings. For each statement, briefly note how you recognise the assignment. The hints help you step by step.
- “In the review the team has read, the question was examined systematically.”
- “We have always done it this way.”
- “Mr Albrecht says he would rather stay at home than go to a group.”
- “That worked well for Ms Schuster last year.”
- “The flat is on the third floor, and there is no lift.”
- “That has long been proven.” (no source is named)
Hint 1
Hint 2
Show solution hints
- Evidence – it refers to systematically gained knowledge. Note: what the review finds remains open; the statement names no finding.
- Tradition – habit without a stated reason. This is a reason for friendly questions, not evidence against the approach.
- Preference – the person themselves says what they want. It belongs in the decision as an equal.
- Experience – a single experience. It is valuable as an indication, but not systematically evaluated and therefore not evidence in the narrower sense.
- Circumstance – part of “condition and circumstances”. It determines which options can be put into practice in everyday life at all.
- Still open – “proven” without a source is at first a claim. Only when a source is named and followed up can it become evidence. The right response is the polite question back.
PART 5 – Critical perspective: limits, tensions and open questions
Evidence alone settles nothing
A common misunderstanding is: if there is evidence, the decision is made. The definition by Sackett et al. (1996) and the description by IQWiG (2025) say something different: evidence is a building block that expertise brings together with condition, circumstances and preferences. Two people with similar starting points can therefore decide differently after careful weighing without anyone “ignoring” the evidence. Conversely, arbitrariness is no solution either: the decision should be explicit and justified.
Limits: context, values and gaps
Context and transferability. Studies describe particular groups under particular conditions. Whether the findings fit your service users and your field of work in Germany is a question of external validity (IQWiG, 2025). It cannot be answered across the board but requires judgement.
Values and questions of power. What counts as an important result is not neutral. Who decides whether a service is “successful” – the organisation, the funding body, the researchers or the people who use the service? The professional ethics of the DBSH stresses autonomy, justice and solidarity (DBSH, 2024); this means that such questions of value have to be kept in mind. The technology-deficit argument and the concern about professional autonomy from the debate can also be read this way: as a reminder that evidence does not relieve anyone of responsibility and participation. This is an interpretation; what is supported is only that these arguments occur in the debate.
Gaps in research. For some questions there is no suitable study. This does not mean that nothing may be done – it means that the justification honestly rests on experience, professional knowledge and preferences and names the uncertainty. In Module 3 you see why a study design has to fit the question, and in Module 7 we look at the limits in the lifeworld of service users in more depth.
Open questions for your thinking and writing
- How much standardisation can social work bear without losing the particularity of the individual person?
- Who should have a say in which results (outcomes) count in research and practice?
- How much evidence is “enough” to justify an approach – and how does a team deal with gaps?
- How can the perspective of service users be included so that it is more than a duty to be ticked off?
For term papers: separate clearly between finding (what a source reports), interpretation (what you derive from it) and evaluation (how you place it). Especially with terms such as “evidence-based”, it helps to put a short paragraph with your own definition and a source at the beginning. You present professional standards such as the DBSH professional ethics not as law but as the position of a professional association (DBSH, 2024).
What is the definition of evidence-based medicine by Sackett et al. (1996) in your own words?
What distinguishes external from internal evidence?
What role do preferences play in evidence-based decisions?
What does “evidence-informed” mean – and to whom may you attribute the term?
Who does section 19(1) of the code of conduct of the NRW Chamber of Nursing apply to?
- According to Sackett et al. (1996), evidence-based means: using the best available external evidence conscientiously, explicitly and judiciously – combined with expertise.
- A decision consists of several building blocks: evidence, condition and circumstances, preferences; professional expertise brings them together (IQWiG, 2025).
- Evidence-based nursing distinguishes external and internal evidence and explicitly includes the perspective of those involved.
- In social work, evidence-based practice is a debated concept with pro, critical and mediating lines – present them fairly and without attributing them to individuals.
- The professional ethics of the DBSH and the code of conduct of the NRW Chamber of Nursing anchor scientific knowledge in the profession; the code of conduct applies only to chamber members in NRW, and the professional ethics is not law.
- Evidence alone settles nothing: it remains one building block, and missing evidence belongs honestly in the justification.
For your studies
- ☐ Term paper: I can define the terms evidence-based medicine, evidence-based nursing and evidence-based or evidence-informed social work with a source and justify my own usage.
- ☐ Timed written paper: I can name the building blocks of an evidence-based decision and explain why evidence alone settles nothing.
- ☐ Presentation: I can present the pro and critical lines of the debate without attributing them to individuals, and correctly state the reach of professional ethics and code of conduct.
- ☐ Practical placement: I can classify statements in the team as evidence, experience, preference, circumstance or tradition and ask in a friendly way for the reason.
- ☐ All written work: I mark professional standards as positions, not as law, and mark interpretations as interpretations.
Voluntary self-reflection – not evaluated, only for your own understanding:
- Which statement have you recently heard in your studies or in practice that you would now classify as evidence, experience, preference, circumstance or tradition? What does the classification change for your actions?
- Where in your field of work would the perspective of service users (internal evidence) be particularly important – and how do you learn about it so far?
- Which position in the debate on evidence-based social work convinces you most at first, and which counter-argument is hardest for you to refute?
- Why is it professionally honest to say openly when no suitable study exists for a question?
Deutscher Berufsverband für Soziale Arbeit (DBSH). (2024). Berufsethik des DBSH: Ethik und Werte in der Sozialen Arbeit [Professional ethics of the DBSH: ethics and values in social work] (2nd ed.). https://www.dbsh.de/media/public/dbsh-bund/Profession/2026-02-05_DBSH_Berufsethik_2._Fassung_interaktiv.pdf
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). (2025). Allgemeine Methoden [General Methods] (Version 8.0 of 19 December 2025). https://www.iqwig.de/methoden/allgemeine-methoden_v8-0.pdf
Pflegekammer Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2025). Berufsordnung der Pflegekammer Nordrhein-Westfalen vom 26. Juni 2025 [Code of conduct of the Chamber of Nursing of North Rhine-Westphalia of 26 June 2025] (MB. NRW. 2025 Nr. 68). https://recht.nrw.de/lrmb/bekanntmachung/19082025-berufsordnung-der-pflegekammer-nordrhein-westfalen/
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312(7023), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). (2026b, 2 July). Pflegeausbildung 2025: Zahl neuer Auszubildender zum dritten Mal in Folge gestiegen [Nursing training 2025: number of new trainees up for the third time in a row] (Pressemitteilung Nr. 231 [Press release No. 231]). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2026/07/PD26_231_212.html
All figures and tables: own illustrations (AI-assisted). Citation style: APA 7 (German-language adaptation).
Self-reflection – 5 questions
Voluntary · not evaluated – your answers are not saved and are not evaluated by anyone. Click an answer; the explanation helps you judge your own understanding.
Question 1. According to Sackett et al. (1996), what is part of practising evidence-based medicine?
Question 2. According to IQWiG, what role does professional expertise play in an evidence-based decision?
Question 3. How does evidence-based nursing distinguish external and internal evidence?
Question 4. Who does section 19(1) of the code of conduct of the NRW Chamber of Nursing apply to (“Pflegehandeln soll auf Grundlage von evidenzbasiertem Wissen geschehen.” [Nursing practice should be based on evidence-based knowledge.])?
Question 5. Which argument belongs to the critical positions in the debate on evidence-based social work?