Innovation in practice: A deviant case analysis of a locally developed assessment tool used in a psychiatric and addiction clinic in Sweden

IF 2.6 2区 社会学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Social Policy & Administration Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1111/spol.13024
Sofia Härd
{"title":"Innovation in practice: A deviant case analysis of a locally developed assessment tool used in a psychiatric and addiction clinic in Sweden","authors":"Sofia Härd","doi":"10.1111/spol.13024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the use of a locally developed assessment tool designed to generate aggregated data to evaluate the work of a psychiatric and addiction clinic. The use of tools, methods and interventions in the Swedish social services is usually based on recommendations in national guidelines established by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Thus, a locally produced and systematically used assessment tool provides an interesting deviant case for discussing knowledge production and use from the perspective of evidence‐based practice. The assessment tool was characterised by the specific psychiatric and addiction clinic context, where local needs and prerequisites were prioritised over the recommendations found in NBHW guidelines. The empirics comprise interviews with 12 professionals who used the tool, where experience of using the tool was analysed using a thematic analysis. The findings can be summarised in three main conclusions. First, tinkering of tools and methods is not necessarily associated with limited practice applicability or relevance. Second, professionals are more likely to appreciate a tool if that tool is designed with a treatment and conversation rationality in mind. Third, rather than perceived as more valid than other types of knowledge, NBHW‐recommended tools are associated with a certain shape or style – but a shape or style that is permeated by legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy & Administration","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article analyses the use of a locally developed assessment tool designed to generate aggregated data to evaluate the work of a psychiatric and addiction clinic. The use of tools, methods and interventions in the Swedish social services is usually based on recommendations in national guidelines established by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Thus, a locally produced and systematically used assessment tool provides an interesting deviant case for discussing knowledge production and use from the perspective of evidence‐based practice. The assessment tool was characterised by the specific psychiatric and addiction clinic context, where local needs and prerequisites were prioritised over the recommendations found in NBHW guidelines. The empirics comprise interviews with 12 professionals who used the tool, where experience of using the tool was analysed using a thematic analysis. The findings can be summarised in three main conclusions. First, tinkering of tools and methods is not necessarily associated with limited practice applicability or relevance. Second, professionals are more likely to appreciate a tool if that tool is designed with a treatment and conversation rationality in mind. Third, rather than perceived as more valid than other types of knowledge, NBHW‐recommended tools are associated with a certain shape or style – but a shape or style that is permeated by legitimacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实践中的创新:对瑞典一家精神病和成瘾诊所使用的当地开发的评估工具的偏差案例分析
本文分析了当地开发的评估工具的使用情况,该工具旨在生成综合数据,以评估精神病和成瘾诊所的工作。瑞典社会服务机构使用的工具、方法和干预措施通常都是基于国家卫生和福利委员会(NBHW)制定的国家指导方针中的建议。因此,从循证实践的角度来讨论知识的生产和使用,一种本地生产并系统使用的评估工具提供了一个有趣的偏离案例。该评估工具的特点是在特定的精神病和成瘾诊所环境下使用,当地的需求和先决条件优先于 NBHW 指南中的建议。实证研究包括对 12 名使用该工具的专业人员进行访谈,并使用主题分析法对使用该工具的经验进行分析。研究结果可归纳为三个主要结论。首先,工具和方法的修补并不一定与实践适用性或相关性有限相关联。其次,如果工具在设计时考虑到了治疗和对话的合理性,专业人员就更有可能欣赏这种工具。第三,NBHW 推荐的工具不是被认为比其他类型的知识更有效,而是与某种形式或风格相关联--但这种形式或风格渗透着合法性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Social Policy & Administration is the longest established journal in its field. Whilst remaining faithful to its tradition in academic excellence, the journal also seeks to engender debate about topical and controversial issues. Typical numbers contain papers clustered around a theme. The journal is international in scope. Quality contributions are received from scholars world-wide and cover social policy issues not only in Europe but in the USA, Canada, Australia and Asia Pacific.
期刊最新文献
The Use and Impact of Well‐Being Metrics on Policymaking: Developers' and Users' Perspectives in Scotland and Italy Practising Resilience: Lived Experience, Agency and Responses to the Cost‐of‐Living Crisis Profiles Among Women Without a Paid Job and Social Benefits: An Intersectional Perspective Using Dutch Population Register Data Work inclusion of marginalised groups in a troubled city district—How can active labour market policies improve? No welfare without workfare? Revisiting varieties of minimum income schemes in Europe (2008–2022)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1