Psychiatrists, n.d.). Bottom-up approaches are where clinical decisions are made based on the idiographic needs of the client relative to current research. Top-down approaches, alongside a large portion of the literature, emphasise the strength and efficacy of scientific evidence as a priority component of the EBP model (Lilienfeld et al., 2013). Still, holistic EBP demands that, in addition to efficacy, the context of client-centred, clinical utility is considered (APA, 2006) and clinical expertise evaluated (Satterfield et al., 2009). These three EBP components are congruent with many professional competency frameworks which stress the integration of scientist-practitioner, clinical assessment, intervention, and cultural responsiveness (Rice et al., 2025). However, critical appraisal of the literature is often emphasised at the expense of clinician expertise and client preference (Melnik et al., 2025;Satterfield et al., 2009). Moreover, whilst tertiary education programs teach the three EBP components, guidance about how to integrate the model holistically for practical and clinical relevance, particularly at the level of individual client decision-making, is largely absent (Jones Melnik et al., 2025). Satterfield et al. (2009) discussed how different disciplines can approach EBP in various ways. First, in relation to best available research, psychology highlights empirically supported treatment, whereas social work and nursing assert that critical appraisal of the literature is dependent on the clinical question. Second, psychology and nursing underscore the importance of how client characteristics influence treatment outcome; however, social work expands on this to include the influence of environmental context. Finally, public health and social work emphasise the largely unaddressed influence of institutional factors and availability of resources. Satterfield et al. (2009) proposed the Transdisciplinary Model of Evidence-Based Practice which integrates multiple disciplinary perspectives to place systematic, contextualised decision-making at the centre of EBP. This model, however, does not provide a structured or applied tool to guide clinicians through systematic decisionmaking in everyday clinical practice.Although clinicians are required to adhere to EBP, numerous practical challenges hinder application (Ward et al., 2021). Barriers to the adoption of EBP include an overreliance on personal experience, misconceptions about EBP, misinterpretation of research findings, and practical or educational barriers (Lilienfeld et al., 2013). Additionally, there are significant gaps in understanding the fundamental principles of EBP, contributing to a lack of application and leading to the need for specific recommendations to equip clinicians with evidence appraisal skills (Melnik et al., 2025). Evidence appraisal within EBP involves a systematic evaluation of research to ascertain validity, reliability, and applicability to clinical practice, facilitating informed, evidence-based decisions relevant to specific clients and contexts (Straus et al., 2019). Although several tools support critical appraisal of the literature, clinicians are also prone to bias and must be reflective of personal limitations in knowledge and competence (APA, 2006;Rice et al., 2025). Lilienfeld et al. (2013) discussed the concept of naïve realism, whereby clinicians overly rely on their own clinical judgement, increasing the risk of misinterpreting treatment effectiveness. Moreover, clinicians with less experience may not have awareness around personal limitations regarding case formulation and the integration of scientific evidence (Huisman providing a client-centred, practical checklist that is grounded in theory (Satterfield et al., 2009;Spring, 2007). Understanding and evaluating the best evidence-based research is a critical component of EBP; however, for practical application that informs individualised mental health treatment plans it is imperative to integrate clinical expertise and client characteristics into decision-making. The CHEC extends the literature and existing critical appraisal tools to operationalise EBP for mental health clinicians. Because the CHEC is explicitly designed to be contextually relevant, it aligns with the transdisciplinary model of EBP (Satterfield et al., 2009), bridging disciplinary perspectives within mental health practice and supporting more integrated and coherent application of evidence-based decision-making across settings. The CHEC may help address existing barriers to EBP, with practical implications for mental health clinical practice across health disciplines and for teaching integrated, holistic EBP in tertiary education. In educational contexts, the CHEC provides a structured framework to teach, scaffold, and evaluate the development of evidence-based decision-making skills among trainees. Future research may examine the CHEC's utility in clinical research projects, supervision, and training evaluations, including its role in enhancing transparency and consistency in treatment planning decisions.Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 cm, Space After: 0 pt Deleted: it bridges disciplinary perspectives within mental health practice (Satterfield et al., 2009), supporting more integrated and coherent application of EBP across settings Deleted: has the potential to reduce Formatted: Font:
Davies et al. (Tue,) studied this question.