Working Relationally with Youth in Child Protection Institutions: A Milieu‐Therapy Perspective

Bøe, Monica; Lorås, Lennart; Vigdal, Mariann Iren

doi:10.1002/anzf.1366

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

‘We are working in specialty units’—An exploratory qualitative study

Rangwaneni,

Raliphaswa,

Maluleke

et al. 2024

Nursing Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo explore related support needs of general nurses in specialty mental health units and provide references for formulating a model to support this population working in mental health care units.DesignAn exploratory qualitative design.MethodIn‐depth individual unstructured interviews were performed with 15 general nurses who worked in mental health care units and were selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected through in‐depth, individual, unstructured interviews. Data were analysed thematically using Tech's eight‐step analysis method.ResultsTwo themes with their subthemes were extracted. The two themes included (a) Needs for professional growth and (b) the Need for emotional support.ConclusionInfluenced by many factors, general nurses could not perform some nursing activities in mental health care units. Health managers should plan the training program to empower and provide emotional support to the general nurses in mental health care units. Further research is required to develop a model to facilitate the support of general nurses allocated to these units.Reporting MethodThis study follows the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research.Public ContributionA total of 15 general nurses participated in the study. We utilized their lunch time to conduct the interviews, significantly contributing to the article's content.

show abstract

‘We are working in specialty units’—An exploratory qualitative study

Rangwaneni,

Raliphaswa,

Maluleke

et al. 2024

Nursing Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice, and social care: a scoping review

Lamph,

Nowland,

Boland

et al. 2023

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Establishing and maintaining relationships and ways of connecting and being with others is an important component of health and wellbeing. Harnessing the relational within caring, supportive, educational, or carceral settings as a systems response has been referred to as relational practice. Practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers, do not yet share a well-defined common understanding of relational practice. Consequently, there is potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as the risk of policy and practice being increasingly disconnected. Comprehensive reviews are needed to support the development of a coherent shared understanding of relational practice. Method This study uses a scoping review design providing a scope and synthesis of extant literature relating to relational practice focussing on organisational and systemic practice. The review aimed to map how relational practice is used, defined and understood across health, criminal justice, education and social work, noting any impacts and benefits reported. Searches were conducted on 8 bibliographic databases on 27 October 2021. English language articles were included that involve/discuss practice and/or intervention/s that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. Results A total of 8010 relevant articles were identified, of which 158 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most were opinion-based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. A further 27 (17.09%) were categorised as case studies, focussing on explaining relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service, with only 11 including any empirical data. Of the included empirical studies, 45 were qualitative, 6 were quantitative, and 9 mixed methods studies. There were differences in the use of terminology and definitions of relational practice within and across sectors. Conclusion Although there may be implicit knowledge of what relational practice is the research field lacks coherent and comprehensive models. Despite definitional ambiguities, a number of benefits are attributed to relational practices. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021295958

show abstract

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice and social care: A Scoping Review

Lamph

Nowland²,

Boland³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Establishing and maintaining relationships and ways of connecting and being with others is an important component of health and wellbeing. Harnessing the relational within caring, supportive, educational or carceral settings as a systems response has been referred to as relational practice. Practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers do not yet share a well-defined common understanding of relational practice. Consequently, there is potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as the risk of policy and practice being increasingly disconnected. Comprehensive reviews are needed to support the development of a coherent shared understanding of relational practice. Method This study uses a scoping review design providing a scope and synthesis of extant literature relating relational practice focussing on organisational and systemic practice. The review aimed to map how relational practice is used, defined and understood across health, criminal justice, education and social work, noting any impacts and benefits reported. English language articles were included that involve/discuss practice and/or intervention/s that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. Results A total of 8010 relevant articles were identified, of which 158 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most were opinion based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. A further 27 (17.09%) were categorised as case studies, focussing on explaining relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service, with only 11 including any empirical data. Of the included empirical studies, 45 were qualitative, 6 were quantitative and 9 mixed methods studies. There were differences in use of terminology and definitions of relational practice within and across sectors. Conclusion Although there may be implicit knowledge of what relational practice is the research field lacks coherent and comprehensive models. Despite definitional ambiguities a number of benefits are attributed to relational practices. Systematic review registration: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021295958) and is available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021295958.

show abstract

Working Relationally with Youth in Child Protection Institutions: A Milieu‐Therapy Perspective

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

‘We are working in specialty units’—An exploratory qualitative study

‘We are working in specialty units’—An exploratory qualitative study

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice, and social care: a scoping review

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice and social care: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About