Search

Unit managers and employees in schools, social services, and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) were asked to describe their views on children's and adolescents' psychosocial needs when collaboration was required. A descriptive case study design was employed and data were gathered from 23 professionals in six focus groups. The data were analysed by the use of an inductive content approach. Disparities were identified that were interpreted as different approaches to children's needs, which we designated individual (CAMHS), contextual (social services), and educational (schools) approaches. These were perceived as emerging from the professional representations of children's needs that were created within each working group. The organisational affiliation seemed however to have a stronger influence than professional education, regarding the view of children's needs. We suggest that it would be an advantage for professionals to be able to participate in dialogue groups to discuss the meaning of their organisational and professional affiliations, and how this affects their views. Rather than formal knowledge, such dialogues should contain more essential knowledge related to the professionals' approaches to children's needs and to the diversities in the way they think and work in a "give-and-take" process. This might influence their way of thinking and working with children and adolescents, and strengthen their understanding of each other's work.

Professionals in healthcare, social services, and schools often collaborate when addressing children and adolescents with complex psychosocial needs. Based on theory of social representations, we investigated how professionals in the mentioned organizations perceived each other through their experiences of collaboration. Twenty-nine unit managers and 35 staff members were interviewed in 12 focus groups, and the data collected were subjected to content analysis. Most social representations indicated complex and problematic interprofessional collaboration, although some were positive in nature. We also found social representations regarding ignorance of each other's organizations, distrust, unavailability, and uncommunicativeness. Conceptions of the other party's way of thinking appeared to include adverse attitudes and low expectations from the other side. Concurrently, there was mutual understanding of the limited room to maneuver and heavy workloads. The professionals' perceptions reflected frustration and ambivalence, and also indicated that dialogue was prevented by established boundaries and low expectations. We conclude that arenas are needed for productive dialogue and exchange of relevant knowledge in such collaborative systems, and that management should enable staff to collaborate based on the existing boundaries.