Reconsidering critical appraisal in social work: choice, care and organization in real-time treatment decisions

Björk, Alexander

doi:10.1080/2156857x.2018.1475299

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The many approaches that were used by the NBHW in order to include knowledge from both evidence, professionals and clients could be interpreted as a recognition of social workers' and clients' credibility as knowers. The contrast to parts of the literature critical of EBP is stark, with its focus on the constraints placed on social workers' autonomy (Jacobsson and Meeuwisse, 2020), or the incompatibility of EBP demands and social workers' daily work (Martinell Barfoed, 2018;Björk, 2019).…”

Section: Central Management-by-knowledge Practicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evidence-based practice and management-by-knowledge of disability care: rigid constraint or fluid support?

Pistone

Lidström

Bohlin

et al. 2022

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although increasingly accepted in some corners of social work, critics have claimed that evidence-based practice (EBP) methodologies run contrary to local care practices and result in an EBP straitjacket and epistemic injustice. These are serious concerns, especially in relation to already marginalised clients.Aims and objectives: Against the backdrop of criticism against EBP, this study explores the ramifications of the Swedish state-governed knowledge infrastructure, ‘management-by-knowledge’, for social care practices at two care units for persons with intellectual disabilities.Methods: Data generated from ethnographic observations and interviews were analysed by applying a conceptual framework of epistemic injustice; also analysed were national, regional and local knowledge products within management-by-knowledge related to two daily activity (DA) units at a social care provider in Sweden.Findings: In this particular case of disability care, no obvious risks of epistemic injustice were discovered in key knowledge practices of management-by-knowledge. Central methodologies of national agencies did include perspectives from social workers and clients, as did regional infrastructures. Locally, there were structures in place that focused on creating a dynamic interplay between knowledge coming from various forms of evidence, including social workers’ and clients’ own knowledge and experience.Discussion and conclusions: Far from being a straitjacket, in the case studied management-by-knowledge may be understood as offering fluid support. Efforts which aim at improving care for people with disabilities might benefit from organisational support structures that enable dynamic interactions between external knowledge and local practices.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Examining one case of disability care in Sweden, both social workers’ and clients’ experiences were included in EBP infrastructures.</li><br /><li>In this study, Swedish EBP infrastructures functioned more like fluid support than a straitjacket.</li><br /><li>Organisational structures that combine different knowledge sources at service providers can minimise the risk of epistemic injustice within social care.</li></ul>

show abstract

Section: Central Management-by-knowledge Practicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evidence-based practice and management-by-knowledge of disability care: rigid constraint or fluid support?

Pistone

Lidström

Bohlin

et al. 2022

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Decisions in the social services are often distributed across time, people, and different levels of the organization. 7 Finally, the article will also argue that the case for SDM seems to be stronger than for other methods. Now, are these issues important, and if so, why?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Some reservations are needed: the assumption that quality of design of evaluations is a matter of degrees, does not in itself presuppose a particular system for “evidence grading.” Neither does the article want to argue that decision making is an easy and clear‐cut matter, whether at the individual level or the organizational. Decisions in the social services are often distributed across time, people, and different levels of the organization …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared decision making in the social services? Reasons to consider when choosing methods for service user participation

Nykänen

2019

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

User participation is nowadays a desirable feature of social services work. The International Federation of Social Workers states that staff shall promote the participation of clients so as to “enable them to be empowered in all aspects of decisions and actions affecting their lives.” The statement is codified in various national ethical codes; the Swedish Code of Conduct and Ethical Behaviour for Social Workers specifies that interventions shall build on client participation and common agreement. However, a 2012 Swedish governmental report noted that among 16 methods for user participation in the social services, psychiatry, and abuse and addiction care, only one, shared decision making (SDM), had been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Given this lack of evaluations, how ought professionals to choose between the various methods? The aim of this article is to introduce distinctions in order to answer the question of how social workers ought to choose between different user participation methods, to suggest how this choice could be made, and to argue that the case for SDM seems to be stronger than for other methods. We can distinguish between justificatory, motivational, and explanatory reasons in order to clarify what types of reasons are relevant when choosing between methods. Another distinction concerns general and specific reasons for user participation. No particular method for user participation can inherit its support only from general reasons, since these ordinarily do not point out any method as better than another one. Rather, specific reasons are needed. Social workers do have good reasons for choosing certain methods for user participation rather than others. These methods can be found by looking at specific justificatory reasons. The case for SDM is strengthened by its having been evaluated in RCTs and also because the SDM components harmonize with relevant components in the presented (Swedish) legislation.

show abstract

“…Critical work refuses the institution-based practice of early social work models (e.g. psychodynamic, cognitive-behaviourist and task-centred practices) that dominated the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century (Lambers, 2015), and argues the importance of mandatory standards and protocols in social administration (Björk, 2019: 42). In addition, critical practice prefers non-bureaucratic forms of social care that is independent from economic and political interests (Payne, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the state: Developments and trends in critical social work in Switzerland and Hungary

Temesváry

Drilling

2022

International Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the developments and current trends in the practice of critical social work in Hungary and Switzerland based on the international literature on critical social work, as well as Hungarian and Swiss publications that are less known to the international scientific community. The study concludes that contemporary Swiss and Hungarian critical social work is in close relationship with civil society and is particularly effective in intervening where state-run social services are less efficient. This includes the areas of migration aid and homeless care in both countries, and the support of the Roma people in Hungary.

show abstract

Reconsidering critical appraisal in social work: choice, care and organization in real-time treatment decisions

Cited by 9 publications

References 37 publications

Evidence-based practice and management-by-knowledge of disability care: rigid constraint or fluid support?

Evidence-based practice and management-by-knowledge of disability care: rigid constraint or fluid support?

Shared decision making in the social services? Reasons to consider when choosing methods for service user participation

Beyond the state: Developments and trends in critical social work in Switzerland and Hungary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About