Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Mental Health Systems
Published in: International Journal of Mental Health Systems 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Walking the tightrope-perspectives on local politicians’ role in implementing a national social care policy on evidence-based practice

Authors: A. Bäck, C. Ståhl, U. von Thiele Schwarz, A. Richter, H. Hasson

Published in: International Journal of Mental Health Systems | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite national policy recommending evidence-based practice (EBP), its application in social care has been limited. While local politicians can affect the process, little is known about their knowledge, attitudes and roles regarding EBP. The aim here is twofold: to explore the role of local politicians in the implementation of EBP in social care from both their own and a management perspective; and to examine factors politicians perceive as affecting their decisions and actions concerning the implementation of EBP policy.

Methods

Local politicians (N = 13) and managers (N = 22) in social care were interviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive codes was used.

Results

Politicians were rather uninformed regarding EBP and national policy. The factors limiting their actions were, beside the lack of awareness, lack of ability to question existing working methods, and a need for support in the steering of EBP. Thus, personal interest played a significant part in what role the politicians assumed. This resulted in some politicians taking a more active role in steering EBP while others were not involved. From the managers’ perspective, a more active steering by politicians was desired. Setting budget and objectives, as well as active follow-up of work processes and outcomes, were identified as means to affect the implementation of EBP. However, the politicians seemed unaware of the facilitating effects of these actions.

Conclusions

Local politicians had a possibility to facilitate the implementation of EBP, but their role was unclear. Personal interest played a big part in determining what role was taken. The results imply that social care politicians might need support in the development of their steering of EBP. Moving the responsibility for EBP facilitation upwards in the political structure could be an important step in developing EBP in social care.
Literature
1.
Mullen EJ, Bledsoe SE, Bellamy JL. Implementing evidence-based social work practice. Res Soc Work Pract. 2008;18(4):325–38.CrossRef
2.
Horwitz SM, Hurlburt MS, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Palinkas LA, Rolls-Reutz J, Zhang J, et al. Exploration and adoption of evidence-based practice by US Child Welfare Agencies. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014;39:147–52.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Morago P. Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practice in the social services: a UK survey. J Evid Based Soc Work. 2010;7(5):452–65.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mullen E, Bacon W. A survey of practitioner adoption and implementation of practice guidelines and evidence-based treatments. In: Roberts A, Yeager K, editors. Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 210–8.
5.
Rosen A. Knowledge use in direct practice. Soc Serv Rev. 1994;68(4):561–77.CrossRef
6.
Boström A-M, Wallin L, Nordström G. Research use in the care of older people: a survey among healthcare staff. Int J Older People Nurs. 2006;1(3):131–40.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bergmark Å, Lundström T. Education, practice and research. Knowledge and attitudes to knowledge of Swedish social workers. Soc Work Educ. 2002;21(3):359–73.CrossRef
8.
Avby G, Nilsen P, Ellström P. Knowledge use and learning in everyday social work practice : a study in child investigation work. Child Fam Soc Work. 2015. doi:10.​1111/​cfs.​12227.
9.
Perlinski M, Blom B, Moren S. Getting a sense of the client: working methods in the personal social services in Sweden. J Soc Work. 2013;13(5):508–32.CrossRef
10.
Bergmark Å, Lundström T. Metoder i socialt arbete: om insatser och arbetssätt i socialtjänstens individ- och familjeomsorg. Soc Tidsskr. 1998;4:291–314.
11.
Morago P. Evidence-based practice: from medicine to social work. Eur J Soc Work. 2006;9(4):461–77.CrossRef
12.
Haynes RB, Deveraux PJ, Guyatt G. Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence based practice. Br Med J. 2002;324:1350.CrossRef
13.
Hill M, Hupe P. Implementing public policy: governance in theory and practice. London: Sage Publications; 2002.
14.
Denvall V, Johansson K. Kejsarens nya kläder—implementering av evidensbaserad praktik i socialt arbete. Soc Tidskr. 2012;160837(1):26–45.
15.
Statskontoret. Evidensbaserad praktik inom socialtjänsten: Utvärdering av överenskommelsen mellan regeringen och SKL. 2014.
16.
Montin S. Between fragmentation and coordination. Public Manag An Int J Od Res Theory. 2000;2(1):1–24.
17.
Bäck H. Party politics and the common good in Swedish local government. Scan Polit Stud. 2003;26(2):93–123.CrossRef
18.
19.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Commun Psychol. 2008;41(3–4):327–50.CrossRef
22.
Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004;180(March):57–60.
23.
Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Bartholomew K, Parcel G, Kok G, Gottlieb N, Fernández M. Planning health promotion programs an intervention mapping approach. Third edit: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
25.
Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Commers M, Smerecnik C. The ecological approach in health promotion programs: a decade later. Am J Heal Promot. 2008;22(6):437–42.CrossRef
26.
Sandström B, Willman A, Svensson B, Borglin G. Perceptions of national guidelines and their (non) implementation in mental healthcare: a deductive and inductive content analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Hunter SB, Han B, Slaughter ME, Godley SH, Garner BR. Associations between implementation characteristics and evidence-based practice sustainment: a study of the adolescent community reinforcement approach. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Schell SF, Luke DA, Schooley MW, Elliott MB, Herbers SH, Mueller NB, et al. Public health program capacity for sustainability: a new framework. Implement Sci. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Kalkan A, Roback K, Hallert E, Carlsson P. Factors influencing rheumatologists’ prescription of biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: an interview study. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
May PJ, Winter SC. Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: influences on policy implementation. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2009;19(3):453–76.CrossRef
31.
Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7):e21704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, Dobbins M, Pettman T, Burns C, et al. Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Hermelin B, Börjesson M, Johansson K, Nordmark S, Syssner J, Thelander S, et al. Kommunstrategiska perspektiv -demokrati, organisation, kunskap och samhällsförändring. Report 2014:1. Linköping: Linköpings universitet, Centrum för kommunstrategiska studier; 2014. p. 39–46.
35.
Sandström B, Willman A, Svensson B, Borglin G. Mapping attitudes and awareness with regard to national guidelines: an e-mail survey among decision makers. J Nurs Manag. 2014;22(7):884–93.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Fredriksson M, Eldh A, Vengberg S, Dahlström T, Halford C, Wallin L, et al. Local politico-administrative perspectives on quality improvement based on national registry data in Sweden: a qualitative study using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Johansson S. Who runs the mill? The distribution of power in Swedish social service agencies. Eur J Soc Work. 2012;15(5):679–95.CrossRef
38.
Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet?—a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Matland RE. Synthesizing the Implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. J Public Adm Res Theory J-PART. 1995;5:145–74.
40.
Lundquist L. Implementation steering. An actor-structure approach. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB; 1987.
41.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
42.
Brantnell A, Baraldi E, Van Achterberg T, Winblad U. Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders. Implement Sci. 2015;10(100):1–8.
43.
Markström U. Staying the course? challenges in implementing evidence-based programs in community mental health services. Int J Environ Res Public health. 2014;11(10):10752–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Kalkan A, Sandberg J, Garpenby P. Management by knowledge in practice—implementation of national healthcare guidelines in Sweden. Soc Policy Adm. 2015;49(7):911–27.
Metadata
Title
Walking the tightrope-perspectives on local politicians’ role in implementing a national social care policy on evidence-based practice
Authors
A. Bäck
C. Ståhl
U. von Thiele Schwarz
A. Richter
H. Hasson
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1752-4458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-016-0107-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

International Journal of Mental Health Systems 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Towards understanding governance issues in integration of mental health into primary health care in Uganda

Research

Frequent callers to telephone helplines: new evidence and a new service model

Research

Predictors of alcohol and other drug use among pregnant women in a peri-urban South African setting

Research

Gender differences in the association between cognitive social capital, self-rated health, and depressive symptoms: a comparative analysis of Sweden and Ukraine

Reviewer acknowledgement

Annual acknowledgement of manuscript reviewers

Case study

‘Opening up the mind’: problem-solving therapy delivered by female lay health workers to improve access to evidence-based care for depression and other common mental disorders through the Friendship Bench Project in Zimbabwe