Research evidence on different strengths-based approaches within adult social work: A systematic review

Price, Anna; Ahuja, Latika; Bramwell, Charlotte; Briscoe, Simon; Shaw, Liz; Nunns, Michael; O'Rourke, Gareth; Baron, Samantha; Anderson, Rob

Abstract

Background A 'strengths-based approach' focusses on peoples' goals and resources rather than their problems. Social care professionals and organisations are striving to practise in a strengthsbased way and since the Care Act of 2014 it is an even stronger requirement. However, there are challenges in implementing strengths-based approaches into practise, and uncertainty remains about their effectiveness. Objective To summarise research evidence on the effectiveness and the implementation of different strengths-based approaches within adult social work in the UK. Data sources We searched seven databases: MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, HMIC, CINAHL, ASSIA and the Campbell Library. Supplementary web searches were conducted. No date or language limits were used. Review methods Eligible studies were about adults (=18 years) being supported or assessed by social workers; or about initiatives involving adult social care teams. For the effectiveness question, outcomes could be directly related to people's individual outcomes or outcomes at the level of families or communities. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group's Risk of Bias Tool was chosen to appraise the quality of effectiveness studies, and qualitative implementation studies were assessed using the Wallace criteria. Findings were tabulated and analysed using framework synthesis, based on the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Studies that were not synthesised were summarised descriptively. Findings Of 5,030 studies screened, none met our inclusion criteria for the effectiveness question. Fifteen qualitative or mixed methods studies met the criteria for the implementation question, six of which were assessed as 'good quality'. Seven examined Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) and the remaining eight studies examined Local Area Coordination, Solution Focused Therapy, Family Group Conferencing, Asset-based Community Development, Strengthsbased with Relationship-based Approach, Asset-based approaches, and Motivational Interviewing. Seven studies on Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP), were synthesised into the following themes of implementation factors: 1) MSP as an intervention: seen as initially demanding but with long-term advantages; required significant practice change; needed tailoring to local settings. 2) Culture and Settings: required broad cultural changes; 'outward facing' and smaller/specialist councils tended to find this easier. 3) Individual characteristics: enhancing the knowledge, skills and confidence of stakeholders in MSP facilitated delivery; depended on practitioner skill in engaging people being supported; and people's willingness to engage. 4) Embedding and sustaining MSP: depended on strong leadership and active engagement at all levels; required extensive planning and shaping of safeguarding practice that was userfocussed. For the remaining eight studies of seven strengths-based approaches, we provide a summary of their findings. Limitations Our findings are mainly limited by the lack of available evidence in the UK. Higher quality studies may have revealed richer explanations of implementation. Conclusions There is a lack of good quality research evidence evaluating the effectiveness or implementation of strengths-based approaches. The synthesis revealed a wide range of factors that enabled or inhibited successful implementation of Making Safeguarding Personal. These factors may have wider relevance for the implementation of other strengths-based models of social work practice. Future work Higher quality evaluations of different strengths-based social work models are required. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020166870 Funding Commissioned by the NIHR HS&DR programme as a review project (NIHR130867) within NIHR HS&DR programme, reference number 16/47/22.

• Report Type: Research Report
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Deposit Date: Feb 9, 2022
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr-tr-130867
• Public URL: https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/9005858