Family Partner: study protocol for a pilot randomised study of a home-visitation intervention in Norway.

AIM: Every year, about 5% of children in Norway experience severe child maltreatment and need support from the child welfare services. However, research-supported interventions for this group are lacking. The current study piloted an intensive home-visitation intervention, Family Partner, which aims to reduce child maltreatment among at-risk parents by improving parental skills, agency and trust in the welfare services, and children's well-being. The randomised controlled trial piloted in this study examines the acceptability of the Family Partner intervention for staff and families and evaluates its feasibility for a full-scale randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This protocol outlines a prospective, parallel, pilot randomised trial of the Family Partner intervention in three Norwegian municipal child welfare services. The participants are families with children under 12 years of age, where the parents are identified as having challenges. Families in the treatment group receive the Family Partner intervention, while families in the control group receive ordinary child welfare services. Data are collected at baseline, and at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after recruitment. The pilot study monitor retention and adherence to inform the feasibility of a future full-scale randomised study. To assess the acceptability of the trial and intervention, a subsample of the participating families, as well as the family partners and representatives of the child welfare services in each municipality, are invited to complete qualitative interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The results will guide the design of a fully powered randomised controlled trial of the Family Partner intervention compared with ordinary child welfare services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04957394; Pilot Trial of Family Partner: a Child Maltreatment Prevention Intervention (FAMPART); registered on 12 July 2021.

Mental health professionals' expectations and efforts to include employment for people with moderate to severe mental illness in treatment settings.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that employment is an important factor for recovery and improved quality of life for people with mental illnesses. Mental health professionals often serve as gatekeepers for employment interventions, yet little is known about their expectations about employment for people with mental illness in Norway. The purpose of this study is to examine mental health professionals' expectations and efforts to include employment for people with moderate to severe mental illness in treatment settings. METHODS: Two hundred seven mental health professionals were recruited from municipal mental health services, specialized clinics, social media, and professionals' networks across Norway. Participants completed a survey package comprising demographic questions, current practices and a revised version of the self-reported measure Expectations for the Employability of People with Serious Mental Illness (EESMI), a validated measure consisting of three subscales. RESULTS: Results suggested overall favorable expectations of employment for people with moderate to severe mental illness. Analyses revealed that patients participating more frequently in collaborative meetings predicted more favorable expectations about employment among mental health professionals compared to less frequent meetings. In addition, findings suggest that psychiatrist hold more negative expectations about employment in comparison to the other educational groups. Lastly, more than half of mental health professionals reported that they have integrated discussions about employment, and routines to address work-oriented activity in consultations with patients, however, there are substantial variations in routines for addressing work or work-oriented activity as a topic in consultations with patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that efforts are being made to integrate employment in treatment settings for people with mental illness in Norway; however, more work is needed to remove barriers and facilitate evidence-based approaches.

Norwegian Social Work and Child Welfare Students' Attitudes Toward Research-Supported Treatments.

Purpose: Evidence-based practice (EBP) has increasingly become a part of social work education, but there is a lack of knowledge about students' attitudes toward it. This study evaluated Norwegian social work students' attitudes toward research-supported treatments (RSTs).Method: Attitudes were measured with the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36), a validated measure including 12 subscales.Results: The findings suggest that master's students are more positive toward RSTs compared to bachelor's students. Having less educational training in EBP was associated with more skepticism toward the concept, suggesting that educational training in EBP contributes to facilitating a positive attitude toward RSTs.Discussion: These findings indicate a need to emphasize EBP in social work education. To enable EBP engagement in practice, we argue that emphasis should be put on teaching students to critically appraise research.

Attitudes toward and Utilization of Evidence-based Practice among Norwegian Social Workers.

Purpose: This study analyzes Norwegian social workers' attitudes toward evidence-based practice (EBP).Method: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 social workers and managers from social services and child welfare services.Results: Social workers were positive about EBP, yet confused about it, rarely distinguishing between EBP, empirically supported treatments (ESTs), experience-based knowledge and research when describing the concept. Five barriers to conducting EBP were identified: (i) concerns regarding a negative impact on the relationship with the client, (ii) lack of time, (iii) a top-down implementation approach, (iv) restriction of social workers' autonomous decision-making, (v) EBP research models not always suiting the client's/family's need. Two benefits for practicing EBP were identified: (i) utilization of research in practice, (ii) utilization of general guidelines in decision-making processes.Discussion: The empirical material demonstrated that the social workers valued multiple types of knowledge when making informed decisions. The most prominent were practical and theoretical knowledge.Conclusion: The findings confirm recent studies, but also suggest a need for future research to bridge gaps in knowledge transfer.