6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘Jack of All Trades and Master of None’? Exploring Social Work’s Epistemic Contribution to Team-Based Health Care

      1 , 1 , 2
      The British Journal of Social Work
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          From its inception, the social work profession evolved in tandem with public health, and has historically contributed to public health efforts to restore, protect and promote public health principles. In recent times, however, the most prominent role for health-related social work is in hospital-based, multidisciplinary teams. Curiously, scant attention has been paid to the place of social workers’ knowledge—their ‘epistemic contribution’—within this medical context. This article reports the findings of a scoping review that examined the role and function of social work knowledge in healthcare teams. Thematic analysis of the literature revealed four key themes: (i) a lack of clarity and visibility—‘Ok, what is my role?’; (ii) knowledge Hierarchies—‘Jack of all trades and master of none’?; (iii) mediator and educator—‘Social work is the glue’ and (iv) public health principles—‘We think big’. Findings show that despite social work’s epistemic confidence, and alliance with broader public health principles and aims, its knowledge can be marginalised and excluded within the multidisciplinary team context. The article introduces Fricker’s theory of ‘Epistemic Injustice’ as a novel framework for inquiry into health care teams, and the mobilisation of social work knowledge within them.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.

              This article summarizes an extensive literature review addressing the question, How can we spread and sustain innovations in health service delivery and organization? It considers both content (defining and measuring the diffusion of innovation in organizations) and process (reviewing the literature in a systematic and reproducible way). This article discusses (1) a parsimonious and evidence-based model for considering the diffusion of innovations in health service organizations, (2) clear knowledge gaps where further research should be focused, and (3) a robust and transferable methodology for systematically reviewing health service policy and management. Both the model and the method should be tested more widely in a range of contexts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                The British Journal of Social Work
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0045-3102
                1468-263X
                January 01 2022
                January 15 2022
                January 04 2021
                January 01 2022
                January 15 2022
                January 04 2021
                : 52
                : 1
                : 256-273
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Public Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
                [2 ]School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
                Article
                10.1093/bjsw/bcaa229
                f163c515-237a-4052-8119-b35ee4f27514
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article