Evaluation of a Healthy Families America (HFA) Programme: A Deeper Understanding

Whipple, Ellen E.; Whyte, John D.

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn177

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is no doubt that negotiating an appropriate level of closeness and developing strategies for defusing challenging behaviour will remain a difficult task for support workers. Evaluations of the use of paraprofessional support workers in general health and social care have highlighted the importance of professional supervision (Hiatt et al, 1997;Whipple and Whyte, 2010). For example, in the family support programme evaluated by Whipple and Whyte (2010), support workers received one to two hours per week of reflective supervision by a credentialed senior social worker or public health nurse, as well as attending bi-monthly meetings that focused on skill building, information sharing and group case-conferencing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluations of the use of paraprofessional support workers in general health and social care have highlighted the importance of professional supervision (Hiatt et al, 1997;Whipple and Whyte, 2010). For example, in the family support programme evaluated by Whipple and Whyte (2010), support workers received one to two hours per week of reflective supervision by a credentialed senior social worker or public health nurse, as well as attending bi-monthly meetings that focused on skill building, information sharing and group case-conferencing. In our study some supervision was provided by support agency managers, but there was considerable variation in the duration and content of this supervision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supporting recovery: challenges for in-home psychiatric support workers

Shepherd

Meehan

Humphries

2014

Mental Health Review Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The concept of recovery is well accepted internationally as a guiding vision for mental health services. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the challenges faced by in-home psychiatric support workers in implementing this vision in their work with clients with severe psychiatric disability. Design/methodology/approach – The findings reported here are based on interviews with 27 support workers and ten managers of organisations providing support services. These were collected as part of evaluations of two supported housing programmes carried out between 2010 and 2011. Findings – Challenges faced by support workers coalesced around two areas: first, balancing the need to provide care with the need to promote autonomy and second, developing an effective working relationship while working mainly within a clients’ home. Practical implications – These challenges for support workers highlight tensions within the recovery vision that are not easily resolved. To ensure high quality, recovery-oriented care services are provided, support workers need access to training courses that focus on challenging areas of this work and should be provided with regular professional supervision. Originality/value – Existing literature on support workers has generally focused on the nature of the role and support worker interactions with other health workers. In this paper, the authors highlight difficulties faced by support workers in implementing the vision of recovery in their work. The paper provides important information for policy makers and managers who are designing service delivery systems that aim to promote recovery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting recovery: challenges for in-home psychiatric support workers

Shepherd

Meehan

Humphries

2014

Mental Health Review Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The hope is that once the familial needs are met, the likelihood of the child entering the public Child Protective Services (CPS) system will be diminished. Numerous evaluation studies have been conducted (Harding, Galano, Martin, Huntington, & Schellenbach, 2007;Whipple & Whyte, 2010), while other research has focused on specific intervention outcomes (e.g., parenting attitudes [Cullen, Ownbey, & Ownbey, 2010], family literacy [Bryant & Wasik, 2004], and child health and preschool education [Fergusson, Grant, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005]). Significantly, far fewer studies have examined this program from a systems level or organizational perspective with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Friedman & Schreiber, 2007).…”

Section: Healthy Families Americamentioning

confidence: 99%