Search

Social Work Field Instruction in the Shadow of COVID-19: a scoping review Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the state, nature, extent, and emerging best practices and principles in the current empirical literature on field instruction in social work. Building upon the previous work of Bogo et al. (2020), the aim is to answer the following research questions: 1) What is the state of the empirical literature (i.e., range and extent) on social work field instruction published amid COVID-19? 2) What is the nature (i.e., topics, design, and methods, theoretical frameworks, outcomes measured, and incorporation of culture and diversity) of the social work field instruction empirical literature published during this period? and 3) How have practices and principles in social work field instruction adjusted, adapted, and innovated during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic? Inclusion criteria: Our inclusion criteria derive from the work of Bogo et al. (2020). The concept of interest is Social Work Field Instruction during COVID-19. We will include literature focused on 1) field instruction; 2) social work disciplinary orientation; 3) undergraduate or graduate-level field education; 4) student or field instructor participants (i.e., field instructors, field educators, practice educators, practice assessors, internal or external supervisors, field supervisors); and 5) COVID-19. Articles will be excluded if they: 1) focus on integrated field seminars or the faculty field liaison role only; 2) include only field coordinators or directors as participants. In terms of context, we will include all empirical literature (inclusive of all study designs), without geographic restriction, published in English between March 01 2020 and December 31 2021 (22 months). Methods: To identify relevant studies, we will search the peer-reviewed empirical literature published between March 01 2020 and December 31 2021 in three steps. For the first phase we will search databases relevant to social work: Scholars Portal, ProQuest—ASSIA & Social Work abstracts, EBSCO Social Science Abstracts, and OVID Social Work Abstracts. Second, we will hand search of table of contents of relevant journals focusing on social work, field education, and practice learning. Finally, we will search the reference lists of articles included in the sample. Using a piloted screening tool, two members of the team will independently screen all titles and abstracts, followed by full article screening. Data will be extracted using a piloted form. We will synthesize (i.e., collate, summarize, and report) extracted data, presenting in narrative and table formats. Review questions: Building upon the previous work of Bogo et al. (2020), the aim is to answer the following research questions: 1) What is the state of the empirical literature (i.e., range and extent) on social work field instruction published amid COVID-19? 2) What is the nature (i.e., topics, design, and methods, theoretical frameworks, outcomes measured, and incorporation of culture and diversity) of the social work field instruction empirical literature published during this period? and 3) How have practices and principles in social work field instruction adjusted, adapted, and innovated during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic? Keywords: field instruction, field education, practice learning, student supervision, social work, best practices, scoping review Eligibility criteria Participants: Our population of interest for this review are students of social work. We will include literature focused on 1) field instruction; 2) social work disciplinary orientation; 3) undergraduate or graduate-level field education; 4) student or field instructor participants (i.e., field instructors, field educators, practice educators, practice assessors, internal or external supervisors, field supervisors); and 5) COVID-19. Our exclusion criteria are articles which: 1) focus on integrated field seminars or the faculty field liaison role only; 2) include only field coordinators or directors as participants. Concept: The concept of interest is Social Work Field Instruction during COVID-19. Context: Building upon the previous work of Bogo et al. (2020), and given the specific challenges and changes that have been demanded in social work field instruction over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic (CASWE, 2021), we have chosen to adjust our search strategy to focus on literature published between March 01 2020 and December 31 2021 (22 months). Types of Sources:This scoping review will consider all empirical study designs (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies) that meet our inclusion criteria. While we will exclude conceptual, editorial, and theses/dissertations, these exclusions will be flagged, and reference lists will be searched for additional records to screen. Methods:We will conduct the proposed scoping review following the steps of Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework (2005), methodologically informed by Joanna Brigg’s Institute recommendations and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines (Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2018). Search strategy: The initial search strategy was constructed using the three-step framework developed by Bogo et al. (2020). Using search terms deriving from Bogo et al. (2020), using the search terms “‘field instruct*’ OR ‘field educat*’ OR ‘supervis*’ OR ‘practicum’ OR ‘practice teach*’ OR ‘practice learn*’ AND ‘social work’ AND ‘student’” (Bogo et al., 2020), we will search databases relevant to social work. These keywords and index terms will be adapted for each of the following databases relevant to social work: Scholars Portal, ProQuest—ASSIA & Social Work abstracts, EBSCO Social Science Abstracts, and OVID Social Work Abstracts. Next, we will hand search of the table of contents of relevant journals focusing on social work, field education, and practice learning including: Social Work Education, Journal of Social Work Education, The Field Educator, The Clinical Supervisor, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, Social Work Education: The international journal, The European Journal of Social Work, The British Journal of Social Work, The International Journal of Social Welfare. Finally, we will search the reference lists of articles included in the sample, and reference lists in excluded literature flagged as relevant conceptual, editorial, and theses/dissertations. Study/Source of Evidence selection: All records identified through the search will be uploaded into Covidence software for conducting scoping and systematic reviews, and deduplicated. Using a modified version of Bogo et al.’s (2020) previously developed title and abstract screening form, we will pilot a subsample of articles with two members of the team independently screening records against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on results of the pilot, we will determine if additional rounds of piloting will be required to finalize our inclusion criteria and screening form. Two members of the team will independently screen all records by title and abstract using the revised screening form. A third member of the team will resolve any disagreements between screeners. We will then screen full texts for inclusion, recording the reasons for excluding records. Data Extraction: We will use a modified version of Bogo et al. (2020)’s previously developed extraction form, which will include all relevant data (e.g., date, journal, study location, type of study, design/methods, participants/population, topic category, theoretical framework, models of field instruction, culture and diversity indication, key findings, field outcome measures, best practices and principles). The team will iteratively refine the tool through the pilot process, with modifications reported in the scoping review. Members of the team will independently extract data from all included papers, consulting with the team to clarify and address any questions related to extraction. Data Analysis and Presentation: We will synthesize (i.e., collate, summarize, and report) extracted data. This will involve presenting frequencies of the quantitative data, and describing the qualitative data (Peters et al., 2020). We will use a table to present the included articles and key characteristics, with additional tables summarizing the outcomes and impacts identified, and measures used across the articles. References Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Bogo, M., Sewell, K. M., Mohamud, F., & Kourgiantakis, T. (2020). Social work field instruction: A scoping review. Social Work Education, 0(0), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1842868 Canadian Association of Social Work Education. (2021). Statement on the Continued Critical Role of Field Education in Social Work Education—Updated. https://caswe-acfts.ca/statement-on-the-continued-critical-role-of-field-education-in-social-work-education-updated-2/ Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). Prisma extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

The objective of this scoping review is to understand the range, type, and extent of available evidence on the organizational impacts and outcomes of, and associated with, the workplace-based supervision of human services workers. We will identify key concepts, clarify definitions related to this literature, and examine how research has been conducted and outcomes identified and measured. The main research question guiding this review is: What is the nature, range and extent of evidence on the organizational outcomes and impacts of, and associated with, the supervision of human service workers? Sub-questions to be answered include: i) What concepts are used within the literature related to the organizational outcomes and impacts of supervision, and how are they defined? ii) What types of evidence are conducted on these organizational outcomes? and iii) How are these outcomes measured? Our population of interest for this review is human service organizations, teams within these organizations, and human service workers. We will include studies focused on organizations, teams, and workers within the following sectors: social work, social services, community outreach, child protection, welfare, family services (including youth), domestic violence, crisis intervention, disability, shelter/housing centre/homeless services, employment/financial services, corrections/parole, court liaison, immigration and refugee services, mental health. Studies focused on mental health professions (including psychologist, psychotherapist), counsellors, and therapists (including rehabilitation) will also be included. Workers receiving only peer supervision will be excluded. The following health care professions and paraprofessionals will be excluded from our review: nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychiatry, medical doctor, personal support workers, occupational and physiotherapy assistants, school administrators, police, chaplain/religious roles, and family carers. If study samples are mixed, and include one of the included settings or professions, the article will be included. The concept of interest is the organizational impact or outcome of, or associated with, the supervision of workers. With respect to context, given that human services are often funded publicly through governments or community initiatives, and subject to political priorities and broader contextual pressures, differing work conditions result over time (Graham et al., 2017). Therefore, we have chosen to limit our search strategy to focus on contemporary literature published from 2000 onward. There are no cultural, geographic, racial or gender inclusion criteria. This scoping review will include all empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs. We will exclude reviews that meet our inclusion criteria, however, we will check the references of relevant meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We will conduct the proposed scoping review following the steps of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) scoping review framework, methodologically informed by Joanna Brigg’s Institute recommendations and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines (Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2018). We developed a database search strategy to identify studies published since 2000 in English-language peer-reviewed journal articles, and dissertations. The initial search strategy was constructed using key words identified in the titles and abstracts of known relevant articles, including those proposed for the synthesis of organizational outcomes in health (e.g., burnout, staff recruitment; Martin et al., 2020). The results of the initial search were examined, with additional key words added. The full search strategy, including all keywords and index terms, has been adapted for each of the following seven databases: PsychInfo, ASSIA, Social Services Abstracts, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, Criminal Justice, and MEDLINE. We will also search the reference list of articles included in the sample to identify and screen additional studies. All records identified through the search have been uploaded into Covidence software for conducting scoping and systematic reviews, and deduplicated. As a team, we piloted a subsample of articles using and modifying our title and abstract screening form, with all team members independently screening records using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on results of the pilot, we determined that additional rounds of piloting were not required to finalize our inclusion criteria and screening form. Two members of the team will independently screen all records by title and abstract using the revised screening form. A third member of the team will resolve any disagreements between screeners. We will then screen full texts for inclusion, recording the reasons for excluding records. We will complete a search of the reference lists of all included articles, and any relevant systematic reviews or meta-analyses identified in the initial title and abstract screening. Any additional references identified during this search will be screened for inclusion by two members of the team – first by title and abstract, and then by full article. We will pilot the draft extraction form which will include all relevant data (e.g., date, journal, participants/population, setting, design, methods used, concepts examined, definition of supervision, definition of organization outcome or impact, measures employed, key findings). The team will iteratively refine the tool through the pilot process, reporting modifications in the scoping review. Two members of the team will independently extract data from all included papers, with a third member consulted to resolve disagreements. We will synthesize (i.e., collate, summarize, and report) extracted data. This will involve presenting frequencies of the quantitative data, and describing the qualitative data (Peters et al., 2020). We will use a table to present the included articles and key characteristics, with additional tables summarizing the outcomes and impacts identified, and measures used across the articles. References Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Graham, J. R., Shier, M. L., & Delaney, R. (2017). Canadian social policy (5th ed.). Pearson Canada. Martin, P., Lizarondo, L., Kumar, S., & Snowdon, D. (2020). Impact of clinical supervision of health professionals on organizational outcomes: A mixed methods systematic review protocol. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 18(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00017 Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). Prisma extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850