Eating disorder mental health literacy: A national survey of clinical social workers in the United States

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Social Work Pub Date : 2023-01-03 DOI:10.1177/14680173221144217
Chelsea R. MacCaughelty
{"title":"Eating disorder mental health literacy: A national survey of clinical social workers in the United States","authors":"Chelsea R. MacCaughelty","doi":"10.1177/14680173221144217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary Social workers’ eating disorder mental health literacy (ED-MHL) is essential to the detection, assessment, and treatment of eating disorders (EDs) and disordered eating (DE) in clinical practice. This study explored social workers’ ED-MHL, particularly the assessment practices of EDs on intake forms, and within the first two therapy sessions. Participants in this national survey were N = 316 outpatient masters-level social workers in the United States. Participants completed an online survey measuring ED assessment practices in clinical practice. Findings Results showed that 42.4% (n = 133) of respondents did not routinely assess for EDs/DE on clinical intake forms, and 53.2% (n = 165) did not assess within the first two therapy sessions. However, those with recent training related to EDs were more likely to assess. Participants reported low to moderate perceived comfort levels with the assessment of EDs, and training and education were identified as needed resources. Social workers reported deficits in their own assessment practices of EDs. Barriers included: lack of training about EDs/DE; uncertainty about process questions to ask; and perceptions that EDs/DE are rarely the client's primary presenting problem. Applications Difficulties with detection and screening practices appeared contingent on gaps in existing education and training related to EDs/DE. These findings suggest that future research may serve to increase social workers’ ED-MHL, as underscored by the noteworthy finding that 86.1% (n = 229) of the sample reported that they would make proactive changes in their clinical practice, as a direct result of participating in this study.","PeriodicalId":47142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173221144217","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary Social workers’ eating disorder mental health literacy (ED-MHL) is essential to the detection, assessment, and treatment of eating disorders (EDs) and disordered eating (DE) in clinical practice. This study explored social workers’ ED-MHL, particularly the assessment practices of EDs on intake forms, and within the first two therapy sessions. Participants in this national survey were N = 316 outpatient masters-level social workers in the United States. Participants completed an online survey measuring ED assessment practices in clinical practice. Findings Results showed that 42.4% (n = 133) of respondents did not routinely assess for EDs/DE on clinical intake forms, and 53.2% (n = 165) did not assess within the first two therapy sessions. However, those with recent training related to EDs were more likely to assess. Participants reported low to moderate perceived comfort levels with the assessment of EDs, and training and education were identified as needed resources. Social workers reported deficits in their own assessment practices of EDs. Barriers included: lack of training about EDs/DE; uncertainty about process questions to ask; and perceptions that EDs/DE are rarely the client's primary presenting problem. Applications Difficulties with detection and screening practices appeared contingent on gaps in existing education and training related to EDs/DE. These findings suggest that future research may serve to increase social workers’ ED-MHL, as underscored by the noteworthy finding that 86.1% (n = 229) of the sample reported that they would make proactive changes in their clinical practice, as a direct result of participating in this study.
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
饮食失调心理健康素养:美国临床社会工作者的一项全国性调查
社会工作者的饮食障碍心理健康素养(ED-MHL)对于临床实践中饮食障碍(ED)和饮食紊乱(DE)的检测、评估和治疗至关重要。本研究探讨了社会工作者的ED-MHL,特别是ED在摄入表上和前两次治疗中的评估实践。这项全国性调查的参与者是N = 美国316名门诊硕士级社会工作者。参与者完成了一项在线调查,测量临床实践中的ED评估实践。结果显示42.4%(n = 133)的受访者没有在临床摄入表上常规评估EDs/DE,53.2%(n = 165)没有在前两个治疗疗程内进行评估。然而,那些最近接受过ED相关培训的人更有可能进行评估。参与者报告了ED评估的低至中等感知舒适度,培训和教育被确定为所需资源。社会工作者报告说,他们自己的ED评估实践存在缺陷。障碍包括:缺乏ED/DE培训;要问的过程问题的不确定性;以及认为EDs/DE很少是客户的主要表现问题。应用检测和筛查实践的困难似乎取决于与EDs/DE相关的现有教育和培训的差距。这些发现表明,未来的研究可能有助于提高社会工作者的ED-MHL,值得注意的是,86.1%(n = 229)报告称,作为参与这项研究的直接结果,他们将在临床实践中做出积极的改变。
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
Journal of Social Work
Journal of Social Work SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Work is a forum for the publication, dissemination and debate of key ideas and research in social work. The journal aims to advance theoretical understanding, shape policy, and inform practice, and welcomes submissions from all areas of social work.
期刊最新文献
Contested places: A typology for responding to place-based harms Book Review: Disability practice: Safeguarding quality service delivery by Christine Bigby and Alan Hough Book Review: Women and the criminal justice system: Gender, race and class by Katherine Stuart van Wormer and Clemens Bartollas Book Review: Social work for poverty alleviation by Deping Xiang Book Review: The curious case of Natalia Grace, documentary series by Christian and Jackson Conway
×
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