Search

This paper examines how child welfare workers in England, Norway and the USA (California) perceive children's participation building on 91 qualitative interviews. First, analysing the data using Hart's ladder of children's participation, we found that all Norwegian workers perceived children's participation as some form of decision‐making, whereas 40% of English and 35% of US workers embraced views of children's participation that can be considered token or non‐participation. Second, we coded the data for main themes and found that child welfare workers in all three countries perceived children's participation as hearing the child's opinion and information gathering. The themes of age, maturity and ability to form an opinion also emerged from the data. English workers' reflections about children's participation were more nuanced than their Norwegian and US counterparts; and US workers understood children's participation as children providing valuable information during the investigation of a case more frequently than workers in England and Norway. We discuss the implications of these findings on future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study aimed to explore the factors that influence how social workers make decisions and develop their decision‐making skills in care proceedings, and to identify effective support and intervention to develop social worker decision‐making skills. The study employed a mixed thematic approach across two phases of study: an initial inductive thematic analysis of responses to an online qualitative questionnaire and then a mixed thematic analysis of follow‐up focus groups and interviews with social workers working in various social work roles within England and Northern Ireland. The findings identified a number of themes that help to understand the decision‐making skills of social workers; thorough assessment skills, relationship‐based anti‐oppressive practice, being mindful of the lived experience of the child and using critical reflection to make complex decisions. Wider structural factors that support or hinder decision‐making, particularly in respect of organizational support and management supervision were also identified. Social workers can be supported to develop decision‐making skills through additional training, reflective learning and management support to develop their practice wisdom within this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Questions about drinking 'yesterday' have been used to correct under-reporting of typical alcohol consumption in surveys. We use this method to explore patterns of over- and under-reporting of drinking quantity and frequency by population subgroups in four countries. Design Multivariate linear regression analyses comparing estimates of typical quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption with and without adjustments using the yesterday method. Setting and Participants Survey respondents in Australia ( n = 26 648), Canada ( n = 43 371), USA ( n = 7969) and England ( n = 8610). Measurements Estimates of typical drinking quantities and frequencies over the past year plus quantity of alcohol consumed the previous day. Findings Typical frequency was underestimated by less frequent drinkers in each country. For example, after adjustment for design effects and age, Australian males self-reporting drinking 'less than once a month' were estimated to have in fact drunk an average of 14.70 (± 0.59) days in the past year compared with the standard assumption of 6 days ( t = 50.5, P < 0.001). Drinking quantity 'yesterday' was not significantly different overall from self-reported typical quantities during the past year in Canada, the United States and England, but slightly lower in Australia (e.g. 2.66 versus 3.04 drinks, t = 20.4, P < 0.01 for women). Conclusions People who describe themselves as less frequent drinkers appear to under-report their drinking frequency substantially, but country and subgroup-specific corrections can be estimated. Detailed questions using the yesterday method can help correct under-reporting of quantity of drinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can play an important role in patient-centered health care by focusing on the patient's health goals guiding therapeutic decisions. When aggregated, PROs also can be used for other purposes, including comparative effectiveness research, practice improvement, assessment of the performance of clinicians and organizations, and as a metric for value-based payments. The feasibility of integrating the use of PROs for these various purposes on a wide scale has not yet been demonstrated. Our study was conducted to inform policymakers of prudent next steps for implementing PROs in clinical practice and performance measurement programs in order to maximize their impact on the quality of health care. Methods We conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 58 experts and leaders from 37 organizations (response rate: 88%) in the United States, England, and the Netherlands. Respondents included clinical practitioners ( n = 30), measure developers ( n = 11), and leaders of performance measurement programs ( n = 17). We used a qualitative content analysis to assess current strategies for applying PROs in clinical practice and performance measurement and to identify barriers to and facilitators of further implementation. Findings The use of PROs in clinical practice and for performance measurement has developed both separately and in parallel. Experts across the stakeholder spectrum support the collection of PRO data in an integrated manner that would enable using the data for these distinct purposes. We identified 2 main concerns about the feasibility for integrated use of PRO data: the complexity of establishing routine data collection and the tension among stakeholders when using PRO data for different purposes. These contrasting stakeholder views suggested varying interests among clinicians, measure developers, and purchasers of care. Conclusions Data collection approaches that support the use of PROs in health care are underdeveloped, need better integration with clinical care, and must be tailored to the characteristics of the health care system. Enabling the sustainable use of PROs will require a shared vision of clinical professionals, purchasers, and patients, with a prudent selection of the steps in implementing PROs that will maximize their impact on the quality of health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]