The present study sought to examine how qualitative sample sizes in health-related research are characterised and justified. In line with previous studies [22, 30, 33, 34] the findings demonstrate that reporting of sample size sufficiency is limited; just over 50% of articles in the BMJ and BJHP and 82% in the SHI did not provide any sample size justification. Providing a sample size justification was not related to the number of interviews conducted, but it was associated with the journal that the article was published in, indicating the influence of disciplinary or publishing norms, also reported in prior research [30]. This lack of transparency about sample size sufficiency is problematic given that most qualitative researchers would agree that it is an important marker of quality [56, 57]. Moreover, and with the rise of qualitative research in social sciences, efforts to synthesise existing evidence and assess its quality are obstructed by poor reporting [58, 59].
research methods for social workers pdf 15
The area of reward refers to the power of reinforcements to shape behavior. Insufficient recognition and reward (whether financial, institutional, or social) increases people's vulnerability to burnout, because it devalues both the work and the workers, and is closely associated with feelings of inefficacy. In contrast, consistency in the reward dimension between the person and the job means that there are both material rewards and opportunities for intrinsic satisfaction.
There is a debate in the research community about how to judge qualitative methods. Some say they should be evaluated by the same standards as quantitative methods. Others maintain that, because they are intrinsically different from quantitative methods, qualitative methods need a set of standards that take into account their philosophical base and the kind of information they yield.
Chapter 6: Research Methods in the "Introduction to Community Psychology" describes the ecological lens in community research, the role of ethics, the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and mixed methods research.
At the heart of social work is a recognition that every person has value. Social workers are compelled to actively search for the best interventions, find the most effective treatments and develop innovative programs that find solutions to big challenges.
What methods support restorative justice for those who are involved with the court system? What programs offer the most promising results for managing depression while living with chronic stressors of housing insecurity or community safety? How can social workers best meet the bio-pscyho-social-spiritual needs of people facing eviction while attempting to secure housing? These are complex questions that evidence-based practices may help us begin to address.
Evidence-based social work offers important advantages to practitioners and grounds their work in research. This practice model pushes social workers to consistently question their assumptions and regularly seek out new information. It also keeps them attuned to innovation because the process of evidence-based practice leaves little room for stale thinking. It empowers social workers to discover relevant methods, perhaps previously unknown to them, that best address the needs of their clients.
It is challenging work to help individuals who have or are experiencing interpersonal violence; who are recovering from addictions; and who need resources to manage personal crises, health problems and financial emergencies. However, evidence-based care gives social workers new effective tools and techniques to work with, along with many intervention options to choose from.
Evidence-based practice helps social workers deliver the treatment and services most likely to achieve the goals and meet the needs of their clients. It also helps ensure that successful programs are widely implemented.
Some federal agencies and independent research centers publish lists of evidence-based social work programs, such as 30 Days to Family, that allow practitioners to locate effective treatments and interventions that target a wide range of clients and problems.
For example, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) compiles a list of substance abuse prevention and treatment programs that meet high standards of scientific rigor and deliver consistently positive results, which can serve as a valuable resource to social workers.
While randomized controlled trials are typically viewed as a superior way to evaluate best practices, such trials are rarely used in social work for ethical reasons. However, by relying on both quantitative research, which focuses on analyzing large amounts of information to draw conclusions, and qualitative research, which focuses on the close observation of people to understand their social realities, social workers can improve their understanding of effective intervention methods.
In action, evidence-based practice helps social workers transform research into care. Consider clients with eating disorders. Before determining the treatment protocol to use, evidence-based practice directs social workers to clarify the problem:
By using databases of journals and other studies, formulating well-designed queries and reading study summaries, social workers can locate potential treatment methods for their clients. They can then analyze the options to see if the situations of their clients are sufficiently similar to those of study participants.
After selecting the most appropriate method, social workers can discuss the treatment option with their clients and decide how to adapt it to the clients. During interventions, social workers should keep careful records of insights and lessons learned. This can add to their own knowledge base and strengthen their future practice.
Many social work experts push for programs that implement evidence-based social work. The following evidence-based practice social work examples illustrate a range of effective research-based interventions.
Evidence-based social work depends on research that evaluates social interventions. Understanding how well an intervention method works, and under what circumstances, allows social workers to select the most appropriate approach.
For this reason, social workers who are committed to evidence-based practice need research that helps them not only identify effective treatments but also evaluate the best ways to apply those treatments.Ultimately, studying and evaluating real-life evidence makes evidence-based social work possible. As more social workers use this practice model, additional research will help determine its effect on the field.
Finally, social workers practice in constantly changing environments, so they must regularly adapt in response to new policies, limited funding and shifting client populations. In contrast, research takes time. This means that research findings can quickly become irrelevant.
Evidence-based social work training in graduate school can equip social workers with valuable tools that can make it easier to implement research-based interventions. Programs, such as partnerships between schools of social work and agencies, can address constraints, providing needed consultation, resources and training.
Incorporating research-based interventions into social work delivers many benefits. However social workers must overcome barriers to achieve success using this model. To effectively practice evidence-based social work, practitioners must not only have access to a rich trove of research but also have advanced research skills, the knowledge to evaluate research and the training to apply that research.
Qualitative research is also at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect, observer bias, recall bias, and social desirability bias.Table of contentsThe differences between quantitative and qualitative research
Data collection methods
When to use qualitative vs. quantitative research
How to analyze qualitative and quantitative data
Frequently asked questions about qualitative and quantitative research
Implementation, by its very nature, is a social process that is intertwined with the context in which it takes place [15]. Context consists of a constellation of active interacting variables and is not just a backdrop for implementation [16]. For implementation research, 'context' is the set of circumstances or unique factors that surround a particular implementation effort. Examples of contextual factors include a provider's perception of the evidence supporting the use of a clinical reminder for obesity, local and national policies about how to integrate that reminder into a local electronic medical record, and characteristics of the individuals involved in the implementation effort. The theories underpinning the intervention and implementation [17] also contribute to context. In this paper, we use the term context to connote this broad scope of circumstances and characteristics. The 'setting' includes the environmental characteristics in which implementation occurs. Most implementation theories in the literature use the term context both to refer to broad context, as described above, and also the specific setting.
Many theories of individual change have been published [23], but little research has been done to gain understanding of the dynamic interplay between individuals and the organization within which they work, and how that interplay influences individual or organizational behavior change. One recent synthesis of 76 studies using social cognitive theories of behavior change found that the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model was the most often used model to explain intention and predict clinical behavior of health professionals. The TPB, overall, succeeded in explaining 31% of variance in behavior [24]. The authors suggest that 'special care' is needed to better define (and understand) the context of behavioral performance. Frambach and Schillewaert's multi-level framework is unique in explicitly acknowledging the multi-level nature of change by integrating individual behavior change within the context of organizational change [25]. Individuals in the inner setting include targeted users and other affected individuals. 2ff7e9595c
Comments