Search

Empowerment is central in gerontological social work. Operationalizing empowerment from the perspective of the target population is important to align with context specific interpretations of what empowerment means. This study aims at operationalizing psychological empowerment from the perspective of older people. A design was chosen that is based on the concept mapping method, though tailored to accommodate the specific principles we assume in empowerment research and to align with target specific conditions that come to play with older persons. The results show an empowerment with 58 statements divided over four components of empowerment; emotional, cognitive, relational and behavioural component. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The target group of this study concerns young people with a mild intellectual disability. The central research question is: What evidence can be found in the literature for common and specific factors for a play therapy intervention for young people with a mild intellectual disability struggling with aggression regulation. Method: The criteria used for selecting articles are presented according to the PRISMA, and the PRISMA guidelines for writing a review have been applied. Results: Common factors have been found in the literature that relate to the relationship between therapist and client and the therapeutic skills of the play therapist. Clues have also been found for specific factors of play therapy, such as the use of play as a language and a connection with the child's inner world. In addition, certain factors have been found that are specific to the target group of this article. The non-verbal element of play therapy is an active part of this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study assesses social workers' orientation toward the evidence-based practice (EBP) process and explores which specific variables (e.g. age) are associated. Methods: Data were collected from 341 Dutch social workers through an online survey which included a Dutch translation of the EBP Process Assessment Scale (EBPPAS), along with 13 background/demographic questions. Results: The overall level of orientation toward the EBP process is relatively low. Although respondents are slightly familiar with it and have slightly positive attitudes about it, their intentions to engage in it and their actual engagement are relatively low. Respondents who followed a course on the EBP process as a student are more oriented toward it than those who did not. Social workers under 29 are more familiar with the EBP process than those over 29. Conclusions: We recommend educators to take a more active role in teaching the EBP process to students and social workers.

Copyright of European Journal of Social Work is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Research impact is high on the agendas of governments and funders all over the world. As participatory action-oriented research (PAR) intends to have an impact – positive changes in policy and practice – interest in PAR is rising. But although impact may sound clear, it is susceptible to various interpretations. Hence assessing the impact of PAR is a challenge. In this article we describe a PAR project with multi-stakeholder participation at its core, and focus on the effectiveness (co-impact) of this project. We elaborate on two interpretations of impact: findings-based and process-based impact. Although interest in research impact tends to prioritise findings-based impact which focuses on substantive results and shows little or no attention for the effects of the participation process (process-based impact), we acknowledge both types of impact. We equally value the process-based impact, as it does justice to the potential richness of participation. In presenting our research approach and findings, we provide insight in how both findings-based (substantive results) and process-based (less tangible effects) impact can be generated and assessed. We experienced that strict vigilance was crucial for detecting process related effects, without comprising the findings-based ones. Our research approach, with its consciously chosen sequence of actions, a variety of data gathering methods, and informed selection of stakeholder groups, appears to pay off in generating co-impact. Additionally, the operationalisation of a conceptual impact framework in an applicable impact assessment tool, proved to be useful for discovering less tangible and even hidden effects at the individual and group levels of stakeholders both within and outside the PAR setting. We believe that focusing on substantive results only undervalues the richness of the process of participation and its related effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]