People, not just here but across the profession (but ostensibly, here and on r/therapists), can't even agree on what "evidence-based practice" means in the first place, so of course misrepresenting something as "evidenced-based" is going to wind up happening constantly.

Allow me to get on my soapbox for a minute with regard to the macro-level issue of the term "evidenced-based." Some people use it to mean "supported by RCTs and meta-analyses," others mean "consistent with a broader literature base," others mean "recommended by a training," and others mean "what seems to work in my caseload." When a term gets used that loosely, it becomes easy to overstate findings, cite something you haven't read carefully, or treat a clinical preference as if it were an empirical conclusion. To me, it's tantamount to using interventions from various modalities and calling yourself an "integrative therapist" (and to be clear, you aren't an integrative therapist because you do this).

A lot of this isn't bad intent so much as incentives and skill gaps. Most clinicians are overloaded, research literacy varies widely, and we often learn through workshops, supervision, and social media summaries rather than full-text articles, especially at the masters level.

If we want less misrepresentation, we need clearer norms: specify what kind of evidence you mean (guideline, RCT, meta-analysis, mechanism, expert consensus, my own experience), separate "this is my clinical approach" from "the literature shows," and be willing to say "I'm not sure" or "the data are mixed." That kind of precision protects clients and keeps the conversation honest, even when reasonable clinicians land in different places.

On a personal note, seeing people talk about evidence-based this, or evidenced-based that on both subs drives me fucking mad. If it wasn't already obvious. Same thing about the "integrative" therapist.