Is Self-Care a Stand-In for Feminized Social Privilege? A Systematic Review of Self-Care Facilitators and Barriers to Self-Care Practices in Social Work.

IF 1.4 Journal of evidence-based social work (2019) Pub Date : 2023-11-02 Epub Date: 2023-07-03 DOI:10.1080/26408066.2023.2231446
Lauren Barks, Catherine E McKinley, Kristi Ka'apu, Charles R Figley
{"title":"Is Self-Care a Stand-In for Feminized Social Privilege? A Systematic Review of Self-Care Facilitators and Barriers to Self-Care Practices in Social Work.","authors":"Lauren Barks, Catherine E McKinley, Kristi Ka'apu, Charles R Figley","doi":"10.1080/26408066.2023.2231446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review is to fill the gap in a critical understanding of peer-reviewed empirical research on self-care practices to identify structural, relational, and individual-level facilitators and barriers to self-care practices in social work.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis for this systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative empirical research articles focusing on self-care in social work among adult social work practitioners and students.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one articles related to empirical studies of self-care were identified in the systematic review process with samples of social work practitioners (<i>n</i> = 15), social work students (<i>n</i> = 3), and social work educators (<i>n</i> = 3).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Social workers engaged in self-care practices are more likely to be healthy, work less, be White, and have higher socioeconomic professional status and privilege, indicating current conceptualizations of self-care may not be accessible and contextually and culturally relevant for many social workers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overwhelmingly, results indicated social workers reporting greater sociostructural, economic, professional, and physical health privilege engaged in more self-care. No articles directly assessed institutional factors that may drive distress among social workers and clients. Rather, self-care was framed as a personal responsibility without integration of feminized and racialized inequities in a sociopolitical and historical context. Such framings may replicate rather than redress unsustainable inequities experienced by social workers and clients.</p>","PeriodicalId":73742,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","volume":" ","pages":"914-933"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10869108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2023.2231446","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to fill the gap in a critical understanding of peer-reviewed empirical research on self-care practices to identify structural, relational, and individual-level facilitators and barriers to self-care practices in social work.

Method: We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis for this systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative empirical research articles focusing on self-care in social work among adult social work practitioners and students.

Results: Twenty-one articles related to empirical studies of self-care were identified in the systematic review process with samples of social work practitioners (n = 15), social work students (n = 3), and social work educators (n = 3).

Discussion: Social workers engaged in self-care practices are more likely to be healthy, work less, be White, and have higher socioeconomic professional status and privilege, indicating current conceptualizations of self-care may not be accessible and contextually and culturally relevant for many social workers.

Conclusion: Overwhelmingly, results indicated social workers reporting greater sociostructural, economic, professional, and physical health privilege engaged in more self-care. No articles directly assessed institutional factors that may drive distress among social workers and clients. Rather, self-care was framed as a personal responsibility without integration of feminized and racialized inequities in a sociopolitical and historical context. Such framings may replicate rather than redress unsustainable inequities experienced by social workers and clients.

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
自我照顾是女性化社会特权的替身吗?社会工作中自我护理促进者和自我护理实践障碍的系统综述。
目的:本系统综述的目的是填补对自我护理实践同行评审实证研究的批判性理解空白,以确定社会工作中自我护理实践的结构、关系和个人层面的推动者和障碍。方法:我们遵循系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目,对同行评审的定量和定性实证研究文章进行系统综述,重点是成人社会工作从业者和学生在社会工作中的自我护理。结果:在系统回顾过程中,对社会工作从业者的样本(n = 15) ,社会工作学生(n = 3) 和社会工作教育工作者(n = 3) 讨论:从事自我护理实践的社会工作者更有可能是健康的、工作更少的、白人,并且具有更高的社会经济职业地位和特权,这表明目前自我护理的概念对许多社会工作者来说可能是不可及的,也不具有背景和文化相关性。结论:绝大多数研究结果表明,社会工作者在社会结构、经济、职业和身体健康方面享有更大的特权,他们从事更多的自我照顾。没有文章直接评估可能导致社会工作者和客户痛苦的制度因素。相反,自我照顾被定义为一种个人责任,没有将女性化和种族化的不平等融入社会政治和历史背景。这种框架可能会复制而不是纠正社会工作者和客户所经历的不可持续的不平等。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Statewide Cluster Randomized Trial to Test the Impact of the Ohio Kinship and Adoption Navigator (OhioKAN) Program on Caregiver and Child Outcomes. Social Work Responses to Loneliness and Social Isolation Among Older Adults: Knowledge, Competences and Challenges. Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Opiate Misuse Among Young Adults with a History of Serious Violent Offending. Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Among Social Work Students: The Role of Perceived Utility and Knowledge. Digital Media for Social Justice and Change: Conceptualizing Impacts of Artificial Intelligence on Marginalized Media Creators.
×
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:604180095
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