Studies on interventions for at-risk gambling are scarce. This pilot study is the first step in a larger project aimed to develop methods to prevent more serious gambling problems. Drawing on experiences from the alcohol field, the brief intervention (BI) model was tested in a primary care setting. Primary care personnel was trained for 2 days. Patients were screened, and those with signs of problematic gambling were offered a return visit to discuss their gambling habits. Of the 537 screened, 34 (6.3 %) screened positive for problem gambling. Of those, 24 were at-risk gamblers whereof 19 agreed to participate. Six of those 19 took part in a 1-month follow-up. Important information for the planning of upcoming studies was collected from the pilot work. Given that the rate of at-risk gamblers was elevated in this setting we consider primary care a suitable arena for intervention. Staff training and support appeared essential, and questionnaires should be selected that are clear and well-presented so staff feel secure and comfortable with them. The BI model was found to be most suitable for patients already known to the caregiver. The number of participants who were willing to take part in the follow-up was low. To ensure power in future studies, a much larger number of screened patients is evidently necessary.

Purpose: This study aims to construct a theoretical framework that explains how users with comorbidity of substance use and mental illness/neuropsychiatric disorders portray user participation in social work encounters. Methods: To construct this framework a constructivist grounded theory approach was used with semi-structured qualitative interviews with 12 users. Results: The main concern of the participants was the low trust in the social services and perceiving that this lack of trust is mutual. Establishing mutual trust is a social process that cuts through the whole framework. In the framework, prerequisites for participation are explained. The prerequisites are users being motivated and having the willingness to stop using drugs and receiving support, making use of user and staff knowledge and decisionmaking abilities and accessing help and support. Conclusion: Unlike previous frameworks, the model describes participation as a social process and does not explain participation at different levels of power. The results suggest that staff need to be aware of low trust perceptions and work on establishing mutual trust. In addition, the staff need to see each user as an individual and consider how the user would prefer to be involved in decision-making.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Authors of this theoretical article are questioning Hume's view on causality by arguing for Aristotle’s pluralistic view as an alternative strategy for social work research and practice. Methods: Aristotle's notion of causality is applied to discuss its relevance, and then tested on a real case, thereby illustrating how it can contribute to explain why something works. Results: Different types of causes can reveal characteristics that are preconditional for professional's and service user's mutual roles in enhancing outcomes. They can further reveal the architecture of the intervention; the underlying processes for actions to reach a desired goal. Discussion: To deliver knowledge of relevance in social work, one needs to explain the results of an intervention through causal analysis as well as understanding the content and processes of it. Aristotle's forms of causality make it possible to take the contextual historicism of social phenomenon into consideration and give knowledge beyond effects.