Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose: This article investigates the extent of effectiveness studies of behavioral, psychological, and social interventions aiming for measurable changes at the individual level in Sweden 1990–2019. Methods: The data stems from a retrospective analysis of published literature on effect studies between 1990 and 2019. Results: The results show an increase in published articles reporting on effect studies in Sweden the past 30 years, accelerating the past 10 years. However, only 25% of the studies focuses on core social work practices and only certain target groups and areas, especially children and elderly, are covered. Of these studies, only 4% are conducted by social work scholars. Conclusions: Effect studies still holds a weak position in Swedish social work research, despite of processes of professionalization and academization with national efforts to promote knowledge production for practice. This is discussed in relation to competence, opportunity, and motivation in Swedish social work and beyond.

Keywords

effectiveness research interventions Sweden social work knowledge

Social work is a global and a local profession defined as a field of practice as well as a field of research. The strive for professionalization in social work relies, in part, on building and sustaining a unique body of knowledge. This means that the composition of the knowledge base and the research capacity in the field of social work is imperative to the sustainment and advancement of the profession (Maynard et al., 2014). Developing and delivering interventions is a core component of social work practice (Karlsson et al., 2024) and can be provided at the community, group, or individual level.

In this article, we investigate the extent to which effectiveness and efficacy (for ease termed effectiveness studies in this article) research on behavioral, psychological, and social interventions aiming for measurable changes at the individual level have been published between 1990 and 2019. We focus on the body of research that has been undertaken in the Swedish context. We present and discuss our results in relation to social work research in Sweden and beyond. We ask the following questions:
How many effect studies have been published between 1990 and 2019 in Sweden and has there been a change in this production over time?

Which areas of practice and what kind of interventions have been the object of investigation?

What is the average effect of interventions studied within identified areas?

To what extent were the identified effectiveness studies undertaken by scholars in the field of social work?

Social Work Research and Effectiveness Studies

Like any other discipline or profession, social work has had its share of paradigm shifts and debates over methodological preferences, the purpose of research, and the use of knowledge and evidence in social work practice (e.g., Denvall & Skillmark, 2021; James et al., 2019). Even if social work consists of a “millefleur” of subfields with many different methodological starting points, the basic denominator can be found in the notion that research should not only support but also transform social work practice at the community, group and/or individual level (cf. McLaughlin, 2012). The role of social work research and academization in the professionalization process has been of substantial interest in the field of social work for decades (e.g., Dellgran & Höjer, 2000, 2003, 2012; Semigina et al., 2017; Sirotkina & van Ewijk, 2023; Zimbalist, 1977). By exploring growth and change in the conduct of effectiveness studies, this article adds to this body of knowledge.

For a deeper understanding and contextualization of the background of this study, we draw on scholars that have focused on the areas that social work research has targeted. In the seminal work by Zimbalist (1977), based on so called “landmark studies” in the United States, six themes are deemed to constitute the core of social work research. The themes identified was research on the causes of poverty, measurement of the prevalence of poverty, the social survey movement, quantification and indexes in social work, evaluative research on social service effectiveness, and study of the multiproblem family.

In the Swedish context, Sunesson (2016) describes research in social work as being made up of five identifiable topics: poverty; family and children; the rise of social problems; social pedagogy; and the relationship between social workers and clients. Dominelli (2005) identifies four features of social work research: (1) a change orientation, (2) an egalitarian relationship between researcher and its study objects, (3) the importance of reaching accountability toward “clients” or service users for the products that are produced, and (4) a holistic engagement with the different aspects of the problems that are being investigated.

Dellgran and Höjer (2012) show that during the first three decades of social work as an academic discipline in Sweden—from 1980 to 2009—33% of the PhD dissertations published studied social problems and phenomena, 23% studied client groups, and almost 10% studied organizational and judicial aspects of social work. Thirty-four percent of all dissertations studied social work practice and methods used, from a range of different theoretical perspectives, using a range of methods. Among these, only a few dissertations were focused on the effectiveness of social work practice. In terms of subject areas Dellgran and Höjer (2012) find that social care (including research on disability and elderly) was the largest subject area in the field of social work. Other subject areas that were represented included child protection and social welfare benefits (Dellgran & Höjer, 2012). Olsson and Sundell (2016) investigated the extent to which PhD dissertations conducted across seven academic disciplines (including social work) between 1997 and 2012 in Sweden aimed to investigate the effectiveness of interventions and the methodological quality of the identified effectiveness studies. Olsson and Sundell (2016) found that of the 258 social work dissertations published during the period under review, 21 aimed to investigate intervention effectiveness (8%). Of these, three studies used a randomized controlled design. Maynard et al. (2014) studied social work dissertations in the United States between 1998 and 2008. They found methodological pluralism but a predominance of quantitative methods which differs from the results of both Dellgran and Höjer (2000) and Shek et al. (2007) which have found qualitative methods to be more prevalent in doctoral dissertations in both Sweden and Taiwan. Despite this predominance of quantitative methods in the American context, only 7% of the dissertations utilized an experimental design (Maynard et al., 2014). These results indicate that research investigating the effectiveness of social work interventions has not found its way into social work doctoral programs, at least not as indicated by research on the types of research contained within doctoral dissertations.

Rosen et al. (1999) distinguishes between three types of knowledge: descriptive, explanatory, and controlled in their analysis of published articles in thirteen social work journals from 1993 to mid-1997. The control category is used for research on the effectiveness of interventions. They show that 36% of the included studies aimed at producing descriptive knowledge, 49% pursued knowledge for explanation of events, and 15% of the articles devoted to the effectiveness of interventions in social work practice.

This literature review reflects the ambivalent relationship that social work has to its foundational knowledge base (Finne & Malmberg-Heimonen, 2023; Okpych & Yu, 2014).

The Swedish Context

Social work has been an academic discipline in Sweden since 1977. The first professor of social work was established at the University of Gothenburg in 1979 and in 2020 there were 170 full professors and associate professors active in the discipline of social work (Salonen & Panican, 2021). Today, there are approximately 40,000 social workers in the workforce with degrees in social work employed primarily in the public sector (85%) at the local, municipal level (Salonen & Panican, 2021).

The Swedish government has launched several initiatives, with the intent to support research that can provide knowledge for social work practice (Svensson et al., 2024). The National Center for Evaluation of Social Work (CUS), placed under the National Board of Health and Welfare, was founded in 1992. CUS was later replaced by the Institute for Development of Methods in Social Work (IMS). IMS was tasked to promote evidence-based practice and controlled research within the field. In early 2000, the National Board of Health and Welfare launched the National Support for Knowledge Development within the Social Services with the aim to support collaboration between academic departments of social work and the social service sector (Denvall et al., 2014; Tops & Sunesson, 2006). In addition, local and regional units for research and development have been developed throughout the country (Tengvald & Sundell, 2014). In 2017, the Research Council on Health, Working Life, and Welfare, launched a 10-year applied social welfare research program with the aim of enhancing the applied research base for the social service sector. The National Research School for Professional Social Workers (FYS) was part of this program and provides support to social workers who combine postgraduate research studies with direct practice work within the local municipal social services (Svensson et al., 2024). Furthermore, the recent governmental proposal for a new Social Services Act emphasizes the need for a knowledge-based social services based on scientific research and proven experience (SOU, 2020, p. 47).

One area highlighted in these government initatives was a need for research on the outcomes of social work interventions and practice. The development and delivery of social work interventions is as a core component of social work practice (O’Hare, 2020; Sunesson, 2016). Interventions are intentional change strategies designed to promote the healthy development or prevent the detrimental development of individuals, groups, or society as a whole and may be developed and provided within one of several disciplines or contexts (e.g., social work, public health; e.g., Fraser et al., 2009; Sundell & Olsson, 2017). The consequences that interventions have for clients is connected to questions of what works, for whom, and under which circumstances. Practitioners in social work, as well as other stakeholders (e.g., national and international authorities), have increasingly been calling for more research which aims to answer these types of questions (e.g., Bergmark et al., 2012; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [Forte], 2022). In this context, it is vital to note that effectiveness studies are merely one out of a variety of methodological points of departure in social work research; that is, participatory action research, qualitative research, and register studies play and have played a crucial role in supporting practice development in the field of social work (Elmersjö et al., 2022).

Method

This article presents the results of a retrospective analysis of information provided in the published literature and builds on the results presented in Sundell and Olsson (2021) published by the Swedish Research Council on Health, Working Life, and Welfare. This study is an expansion of previous research investigating the methodological quality of effectiveness research on behavioral, psychological, and social interventions (Sundell & Åhsberg, 2016) and is the fourth in a series of studies attempting to increase our understanding of the current standing of effectiveness research in social work and related disciplines (Sundell & Olsson, 2021; Olsson et al., 2023; Olsson & Sundell, 2023). Effectiveness studies are defined as studies using a comparison group (controlled research) with or without randomization in which the independent variable is an intervention delivered at the individual, group, or comunity level (e.g., indicated, selected, and universal) and included at least one behavioral, psychological, or social outcome measure at the individual level. Studies were included only when the outcome of the studied intervention on individuals was assessed in relation to a control group (i.e., randomized or nonrandomized controlled trial).

Three research assistants and two researchers (TO and KS) searched articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria (see below). Following initial screening, potentially eligible articles were further reviewed by TO or KS to determine final inclusion. A total of nine experienced (PhD) researchers were involved in the data extraction, and each trial was coded independently by two researchers using a standardized checklist developed a priori. Coding agreement (Cohen's kappa) varied between moderate (0.41–0.60) and perfect (0.81–1) on individual items. When assessments differed, the coding was discussed among the two coders until consensus was reached. The ambition was to identify all effectiveness studies that had been carried out in Sweden over a 30-year period and as such, is a population study.

Search Strategy

Direct Contact

We conducted a bibliographic search of all 191 researchers that were previously identified as having published at least one effectiveness study during the period 1990 to 2014 (Sundell & Åhsberg, 2016). We then contacted these researchers directly and solicited information on any new publications or in-press studies of which they were aware.

Awarded Research Grants

We searched the six largest Swedish research funders: the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forte), the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas), the European Research Council (ERC), the Swedish Research Council (VR), the Swedish Innovation Agency (Vinnova), and the Swedish Crime Victim Authority (BRÅ), for grants awarded during the period 2015 to 2019 for effectiveness studies (search terms: evaluation, randomized).

Published Protocols

We searched for planned effectiveness studies registered at www.clinicaltrials.com (search terms: Swed, random, effect, evaluat, RCT) as well as studies registered with ISRCTN at www.isrctn.com (search terms: Sweden, mental and behavioral disorder) was conducted.

University Library Databases

The researchers and studies identified in the three steps above were then included in searches in the unified index EBSCO Discovery (Stockholm University library) (search terms: Swed, random, effect, evaluat, RCT).

Pooling

The studies identified in the search described in (Sundell & Åhsberg, 2016) and through the above described search (Sundell & Olsson, 2021) were then pooled and duplicates removed. If individual study results were reported in several publications, the first publication was used as the source for data extraction and coding.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Publications were included in the current study if they had the following characteristics:
The publication reported on a study which was an evaluation of a behavioral, psychological, or social intervention regardless of the context within which it was delivered.

The publication reported on a study which was undertaken in Sweden and the principal investigator was employed by a Swedish university or organization.

The publication reported on a study which was published in a scientific journal in either Swedish or English and had been subjected to peer review prior to publication.

The publication was published between 1990 and 2019.

The study design reported in the publication was an efficacy, effectiveness, or field experiment using a randomized or nonrandomized controlled design.

Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded from the current study if they had any of the following characteristics:
The study reported in the publication did not include an outcome measure at the client, patient, or user level (e.g., only included measures of professional behavior change).

The study reported in the publication investigated an intervention designed to impact somatic health without including at least one behavioral, psychological, or social component.

The study reported in the publication investigated and measured only pedagogical or didactical interventions (e.g., methods to teach children math skills).

Results

After duplicates and follow-up studies were excluded a total of 527 articles reporting an effectiveness study of a behavioral, psychological, or social intervention remained. Of these, 456 were randomized controlled trials and 71 were nonrandomized controlled trials. The articles were published between 1990 and 2019 in 248 peer-review journals. The interventions evaluated targeted universal (14%), selected (13%), and indicated (73%) groups. Although there was some overlap in age groups, the main populations included in the studies were adults (73%), children and youth (19%), and elderly (7%). The most common comparison groups were other named interventions (40%), treatment-as-usual (23%), and wait-list or no service (37%). The number of effectiveness studies increased during the period under review (Figure 1); during the 1990s a handful or articles were published annually, compared to one each week in 2019. Because of this uneven distribution, results are presented in age cohorts of 5 years, except for the first 10-year period 1990 to 1999.

Figure 1.
Swedish effectiveness research on behavioral, psychological, or social interventions published in peer-reviewed journals 1990–2019 (n = 527).

The 527 trials include prevention and treatment of adult mental health problems (39%), child and youth mental health problems (7%), correctional services (1%), somatic healthcare (23%), workplace rehabilitation (5%), and various types of social services (25%) (i.e., child and family services, disability services, elderly care, and individual social services; Table 1). In domains with at least 20 trials, all have a fairly linear trend of increased effectiveness trials. Adult psychiatry is by far the most investigated domain with 39% of all included studies. The second most frequent domain is social work with 25% of all included studies. The major target groups within this domain are individual social services (e.g., substance use treatment, social assistance), child and family services (e.g., parent management training, intervention for children with externalizing behavior), and elderly care (e.g., case-management).

Table 1.
Published Effectiveness Research on Behavioral, Psychological, or Social Interventions and Domain (n = 527).

Time Period

Domain 1990–94 1995–99 2000–04 2005–09 2010–14 2015–19 1990–2019

Adult psychiatry 5 10 20 33 58 80 206

Child and youth psychiatry 0 0 2 7 8 20 37

Correctional services 0 0 0 1 3 3 7

Social services 0 2 12 29 42 49 134

Child and family services 0 1 4 9 11 19 44

Disability services 0 0 0 0 2 6 8

Elder care 0 1 3 7 13 9 33

Individual social services 0 0 5 13 16 15 49

Somatic healthcare 6 9 15 22 34 33 119

Workplace rehabilitation 0 0 0 6 7 11 24

Total 11 21 49 98 152 196 527

The 527 trials included 427 different interventions in either the experimental or comparison group. In the latter, standard treatment (e.g., treatment-as-usual, TAU) is not considered an intervention as it is not specified. These 427 interventions consisted of both general interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and treatment programs based on multiple components such as Treatment Foster Care Oregon (Olsson et al., 2023). Most of the included interventions have only been evaluated in a single study (377 interventions, 88%). The number of interventions studied varied between domains (Table 2). Most interventions were studied within the domains of adult psychiatry (163 evaluations) and somatic healthcare (109 evaluations).

Table 2.
Number of Studies Per Domain and the Most Frequently Evaluated Intervention Within Each Domain.

Domain Studies Interventions (Experiment or Control) Most Frequently Evaluated Intervention

Adult psychiatry 206 163 Internet-based CBT (n = 57)

Child and youth psychiatry 37 36 Internet based CBT (n = 9)

Correctional services 7 9 Yoga (n = 2)

Social services 134 136 Case manager and Comet (n = 5 each)

- Child and family services 44 47 Comet (n = 5)

- Disability care 8 9 Social skills group training (n = 2)

- Elderly care 33 28 Case manager (n = 4)

- Individual social services 49 54 Responsible beverage service (n = 3)

Somatic healthcare 119 107 Internet-based CBT (n = 16)

Workplace rehabilitation 24 24 Yoga and Yomi (n = 3 each)

Total 527 427 Internet-based CBT (n = 86)

Note. CBT= cognitive behavioral therapy.

The most frequent scientific affiliation of the first authors were psychology (42%), followed by caring sciences (24%), psychiatry (15%), and clinical medicine (14%). Less frequent was social work, economics, criminology, and odontology (0.5%–1.3%). There is also a small group of six trials that were conducted by researchers affiliated by governmental agencies or a local authority (Table 3).

Table 3.
Published Effectiveness Research and Scientific Affiliation of First Author Over Time (n = 527).

Scientific Affiliation 1990–94 1995–99 2000–04 2005–09 2010–14 2015–19 1990–2019

Caring sciences (incl. public health) 1 7 16 30 34 36 124

Clinical medicine (excl. psychiatry + odontology) 1 1 3 18 17 35 75

Criminology 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

Economy 0 0 0 1 2 0 3

Odontology 0 0 1 0 1 3 5

Other medicine (e.g., forensic medicine) 0 0 0 1 2 1 4

Psychiatry 6 3 6 12 23 29 79

Psychology 3 9 20 34 69 86 221

Social work 0 0 2 1 3 1 7

Other 0 1 1 1 0 3 6

Table 4 presents the distribution of studies by first author scientific affiliation and domain. Of the 119 trials within somatic healthcare, 64 (54%) were conducted by a researcher affiliated to clinical medicine or caring sciences. Furthermore, of 243 trials within adult or child and youth psychiatry, 189 (78%) were conducted by researchers affiliated with psychiatry or psychology. However, of 134 trials of social work interventions, only 5 (4%) were conducted by a researcher affiliated with social work. This means that of the trials that delt with core social work practice, 129 (96%) were conducted by researchers in other scientific disciplines, primarily caring sciences, clinical medicine, psychiatry, and psychology.

Table 4.
Published Effectiveness Research by First Author Affiliation and Domain (n = 527).

Scientific Affiliation

Clinical Medicine Caring Sciences Economy Forensic Medicine Odontology Psychiatry Psychology Social Work Other All

Domain:

Adult psychiatry 18 22 0 0 1 43 120 0 1 206

Child and youth psychiatry 5 3 0 0 1 7 19 1 1 37

Correctional treatment 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 7

Social services 27 49 1 2 0 21 24 5 6 134

Child and family services 9 5 0 0 0 5 17 4 4 44

Disability care 2 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 8

Elder care 9 21 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 33

Individual social services 7 22 1 1 0 11 5 1 2 49

Somatic healthcare 21 43 0 0 3 7 45 0 0 119

Workplace rehabilitation 2 7 0 0 0 1 12 0 2 24

Total 75 124 3 4 5 79 221 7 12 527

The average effect size, measured with standardized mean difference, SMD (also known as Cohen's d) was .48 across all studies. According to Cohen (1988, 1992), d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively. This means that the average effect is of medium size. The strongest average effects were within the domains of child and youth psychiatry and adult psychiatry, F(1,512) = 6,61, p < .0001 (based on the domains including at least 20 studies). Social service interventions produced on average an effect of .31, which is lower than the SMD within the two types of psychiatry (Table 5). Approximately half, 54%, of the trials, produced significant effects. Once again, the highest frequency of significant trials were within child and youth psychiatry and adult psychiatry, chi²(7) = 27.73, p < .0002.

Table 5.
Published Effectiveness Research and Number of Significant Results and Effect Sizes (SMD) (n = 527).

Domain: N Significant (%) SMD (SD)

Adult psychiatry 206 57 0.60 (.52)

Child and youth psychiatry 37 73 0.68 (.51)

Correctional treatment 7 43 0.26 (.16)

Social services 134 40 0.31 (.36)

Child and family services 44 52 0.34 (.34)

Disability care 8 63 0.56 (.34)

Elderly care 33 40 0.31 (.35)

Individual social services 49 24 0.24 (.36)

Somatic healthcare 119 57 0.41 (.44)

Workplace rehabilitation 24 63 0.45 (.36)

Total 527 54 0.48 (.45)

Note. SMD= standardized mean difference.

Discussion of Findings

Since the 1980s there has been a clear push from the Swedish government to increase the scientific base upon which the Swedish social services rest. This push has included stressing the need for knowledge on the effectiveness of social work interventions. The results presented here show that the number of published articles reporting effectiveness studies has increased over the past 30 years. This increase has accelerated over the past 10 years. However, only 25% of the effectiveness studies identified in this study focused on core social work practices and only in relation to limited number of target groups and practice areas, primarily interventions for child and elderly populations. These results are thus in line with previous studies of social work research investigating the extent of effectiveness studies in the peer-reviewed litterature as well as studies on PhD dissertations (e.g., Dellgran & Höjer, 2000, 2012; Maynard et al., 2014; Rosen et al., 1999; Shek et al., 2007; Olsson & Sundell, 2016; Thyer, 2015). The similarities relates to both the number of studies that are investigating the extent to which intervention effectiveness has been studied and reported (Maynard et al., 2014; Olsson & Sundell, 2016; Rosen et al., 1999) and in relation to which subject areas are being covered (Dellgran & Höjer, 2012). Based on the results of this study, effectiveness studies are rare or entirely lacking from a number of core social work practice domains. For instance, interventions targeting labor market programs, domestic violence, family support programs, preventive work, family court or migration policies and practices are scant. Further, the effect sizes found in this study show that the average effect of the studied interventions are of medium size. The strongest SMD as well as the highest frequency of significant trials were found in the domains of child and youth psychiatry and adult psychiatry. Finally, the results show that 95% of the effect studies that were conducted on core social work practices between 1990 and 2019 had a first author from either the field of psychology, health, clinical medicine, or psychiatry—not social work. The total number of publications from first authors working in the field of social work was seven during the same period. In this regard, it is important to highlight that departmental affiliation does not always coincide with the discipline within which a researcher is schooled. In this study we have focused on departmental affiliation as this is the information that is reported in the publications and as such the extent to which social workers are engaging in specific types of research may be obscured. At the same time, these results are in line with previous studies from the Swedish context investigating the types of research produced in doctoral work within social work and other disciplines (Olsson & Sundell, 2016). Overall, the results of this study speak to the notion that effectiveness studies still hold a relatively weak position in the academic field of social work in Sweden.

Limitations

Although this study has several strengths, including being based on the population of published effectiveness research over a 30-year period and the use of a standardized data extraction protocol. This study also has several limitations which we highlight here. First, as this is an exploratory analysis of effectiveness research conducted in Sweden over the past 30 years it includes a mix of different types of interventions, disciplines, and organizations. As such, publication bias may be unevenly distributed across the different categories of study included here. Second, although we conducted an extensive search for effectiveness research this is not a systemtic review and there might be studies that we have missed. Although we are confident that we have not missed many published studies, we cannot be sure and as such, there might be a minor proportion of studies that we have missed. It should be noted that despite this, any missed studies are likely missed at random and do not pose a systematic threat to the results reported here. In consideration of this, our abolute number of reported effectiveness studies may reflect an underreporting.

Third, our study relies on information reported in the publications. This information is incomplete, but we are unable to further assess the extent of the incomplete reporting contained in the publications included in this analysis. We do not however have any reason to believe that there is a systematic nonreporting of information in the publications included here.

Finally, it should be noted that our analysis includes research conducted in Sweden only. The extent to which these findings are generalizable to other contexts and settings is unknown.

Discussion and Applications to Practice

We will now discuss possible reasons for the weak position of effectiveness studies within social work research in the Swedish context. This will be done, through the concepts of Michie et al. (2011) competence—opportunity—motivation theory of behavior. This discussion should be interpreted as a tentative framework for an increased understanding of the role effectiveness studies in the field of social work research and practice in Sweden, as of today.

Our first assumption is that researchers commit to perform effectiveness studies only if they have competence to do so; social work researchers need to have the relevant skills and knowledge to conduct effectiveness research in order to be able to engage in effectiveness research. To execute a robust effectiveness study with high validity requires extensive know how; such as knowledge in design, measurement instruments, treatment adherence, recruitement and retention of subjects and advanced statistical analysis. It is unclear to what extent researchers in the Swedish context are sufficiently trained to be able to conduct effectiveness research. It is, for instance, to date unclear how PhD programs prepare future researchers to perform these kinds of studies. Courses for already established researchers who wish to perform effectiveness studies are also scarce, if at all existing.

Second, if researchers have the skills (i.e., competence), they also need the conditions to undertake effectiveness research. Effectiveness research requires extensive resources in terms of time and manpower. As all research that involves building long-term relationships with organizations outside of the academic setting, effectiveness research is highly resource intense. Effectiveness research also requires a technical infrastructure that needs to be invested in by the university (hard resources) or external funders (soft resources). It is not clear to what extent these resources are available for researchers in social work as of today. Research funding is thus a pressing issue where the funding provided from the state is often provided for 3- or 4-year long projects, which might discourage researchers from conducting effectiveness studies which would benefit from longer and more secure systems for funding. Another aspect is that effectivenss studies in the field of social work require close cooperation and consistency in interventions. This in turn requires stable partners in social work practice who can commit to long-term processes. In Sweden, social services is a local responsibility, which means that 290 locally elected political boards are responsible for the content and quality of interventions in social work. This means that neither stability nor long-term commitment can be guaranteed—as social work practice and resource allocation is constantly subjected to local political priorities. In addition, the practice environment is one of high turnover and unstable staffing (Turley et al., 2020, 2021; Wei et al., 2022). These circumstances have an impact on social work practice and the preconditions for conducting effectiveness studies of high quality.

Third, previous research has shown that many researchers in social work in Sweden are primarily motivated by a strive for structural and political change (Dellgran & Höjer, 2017), and less in enhancing knowledge of the effectiveness of social work interventions. At the same time, many scholars, stress the importance of research focusing on clients and the consequences of interventions (Dellgran & Höjer, 2017), which well corresponds to the rationale of effectiveness studies. In terms of motivation, the extent of effectiveness studies within social work must also be understood in relation to on-going and recurrent disputes regarding research, teaching, and social work practice (see e.g., Bergmark & Lundström, 2006; Dellgran, 2018; 2023; Hammersley, 2009; Meeuwisse & Jacobsson, 2020; Nilsson & Sunesson, 1988; Nykänen, 2017; Tengvald & Sundell, 2014). Some argue that it is all too simplistic to assume that research can be easily transferred to a complex social work practice, that is also affected and governed by politics, policy, and power over resources and so forth (Morén et al., 2015). It is also well documented that research results seldom have had a direct impact on practice (Nilsson & Sunesson, 1988; Petersén, 2017). But we have to assume that these difficulties apply to all types of research and not just research on intervention effectiveness.

The best available research evidence, which includes research on the effectiveness of interventions, is a cornerstone of evidence-based social work practice (EBP). An increased influence of EBP as manifested through different state intiatives (see above) has been discussed within academia as well as practice. From the academic perspective, EBP has been connected to risks of standardization, fear of professionals left with no or little room for discretion, and as a threat to academic freedom (Bergmark et al., 2012; Björk, 2016; Jacobsson & Meeuwisse, 2020). However, in a strive for change it is imperative for social work research, independent of methodological preferences. Previous research has shown that researchers in social work stress the importance of research focusing on clients and the consequences of interventions (Dellgran & Höjer, 2017). The future development and role of effectiveness studies in social work, has to be seen in light of the ambition of social work practice to be supported by an adequate body of knowledge in order to secure professional status (such as in medicine or law for example). It alse adhers to the queation on how theory can be made useful for social workers in a complex world where social workers seldom directly incorporate theory into descriptions of their everyday work (Sheppard, 1995).

Finally, we argue that the role of effectiveness studies in social work could if competence, opportunity, and motivation are in place become amore regular practice in the discipline of social work. This would be valuable since core social work values and a holistic understanding of people's living conditions play an essential role in the discipline. We argue that if effectiveness studies investigating core social work practices and activities remain in the hands of other disciplines, these essential components are at risk and could therby pose a risk for a more professionalized social work. These arguments also align with the recent European initiative to form a Special interest Group for Evidence into Practice within the European Social Work Research Association (McGlade et al., 2023). The statement from ESWRA calls for embracing a diversty of language, an inclusive approach to both individual and organization dimensions, and finding ways to a more nuanced debate regarding effectiveness studies in social work ahead.

Time Period
Adult psychiatry	5	10	20	33	58	80	206
Child and youth psychiatry	0	0	2	7	8	20	37
Correctional services	0	0	0	1	3	3	7
Social services	0	2	12	29	42	49	134
Child and family services	0	1	4	9	11	19	44
Disability services	0	0	0	0	2	6	8
Elder care	0	1	3	7	13	9	33
Individual social services	0	0	5	13	16	15	49
Somatic healthcare	6	9	15	22	34	33	119
Workplace rehabilitation	0	0	0	6	7	11	24
Total	11	21	49	98	152	196	527

Domain	Studies	Interventions (Experiment or Control)	Most Frequently Evaluated Intervention
Adult psychiatry	206	163	Internet-based CBT (n = 57)
Child and youth psychiatry	37	36	Internet based CBT (n = 9)
Correctional services	7	9	Yoga (n = 2)
Social services	134	136	Case manager and Comet (n = 5 each)
- Child and family services	44	47	Comet (n = 5)
- Disability care	8	9	Social skills group training (n = 2)
- Elderly care	33	28	Case manager (n = 4)
- Individual social services	49	54	Responsible beverage service (n = 3)
Somatic healthcare	119	107	Internet-based CBT (n = 16)
Workplace rehabilitation	24	24	Yoga and Yomi (n = 3 each)
Total	527	427	Internet-based CBT (n = 86)

Scientific Affiliation	1990–94	1995–99	2000–04	2005–09	2010–14	2015–19	1990–2019
Caring sciences (incl. public health)	1	7	16	30	34	36	124
Clinical medicine (excl. psychiatry + odontology)	1	1	3	18	17	35	75
Criminology	0	0	0	0	1	2	3
Economy	0	0	0	1	2	0	3
Odontology	0	0	1	0	1	3	5
Other medicine (e.g., forensic medicine)	0	0	0	1	2	1	4
Psychiatry	6	3	6	12	23	29	79
Psychology	3	9	20	34	69	86	221
Social work	0	0	2	1	3	1	7
Other	0	1	1	1	0	3	6

	Scientific Affiliation
Adult psychiatry	18	22	0	0	1	43	120	0	1	206
Child and youth psychiatry	5	3	0	0	1	7	19	1	1	37
Correctional treatment	2	2	2	2	0	0	1	0	2	7
Social services	27	49	1	2	0	21	24	5	6	134
Child and family services	9	5	0	0	0	5	17	4	4	44
Disability care	2	1	0	0	0	5	0	0	0	8
Elder care	9	21	0	1	0	0	2	0	0	33
Individual social services	7	22	1	1	0	11	5	1	2	49
Somatic healthcare	21	43	0	0	3	7	45	0	0	119
Workplace rehabilitation	2	7	0	0	0	1	12	0	2	24
Total	75	124	3	4	5	79	221	7	12	527

Domain:	N	Significant (%)	SMD (SD)
Adult psychiatry	206	57	0.60 (.52)
Child and youth psychiatry	37	73	0.68 (.51)
Correctional treatment	7	43	0.26 (.16)
Social services	134	40	0.31 (.36)
Child and family services	44	52	0.34 (.34)
Disability care	8	63	0.56 (.34)
Elderly care	33	40	0.31 (.35)
Individual social services	49	24	0.24 (.36)
Somatic healthcare	119	57	0.41 (.44)
Workplace rehabilitation	24	63	0.45 (.36)
Total	527	54	0.48 (.45)

Footnotes

Author Contributions

ARB was involved in writing original draft, review, and editing; KH in writing original draft review and editing; TMO in conceptualization, methodology, investigation, review and editing, and funding acquisition; and KS in conceptualization, methodology investigation, resources, data curation, review and editing, and funding acquisition.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forte) Dnr: 2019-01737.

ORCID iDs

Tina M. Olsson

Knut Sundell

Anna Ryan Bengtsson

References

Bergmark

Lundström

(2012). The mismatch between the map and the terrain—evidence-based social work in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 15(4), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2012.706215

Bergmark

Lundström

(2006). Mot en evidensbaserad praktik? Om färdriktningen i socialt arbete [Towards evidence-based practice? On the trend in social work]. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 13(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2006.13.2.2605

Björk

(2016). Evidence-based practice behind the scenes. How evidence in social work is used and produced (Stockholm studies in social work, 32) [Doctoral dissertation]. Stockholm University. https://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A900625&dswid=4718

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Dellgran

(2018). Vetenskapens mål och mening—uppfattningar om forskningens uppgifter nom vårdvetenskap, utbildningsvetenskap och socialt arbete [The goal and meaning with research—perceptions in caring science, educational science and social work]. Socionomens Forskningssupplement, 43(1), 4–19. https://socionomen.se/forskning/vetenskapliga-artiklar/vetenskapens-mal-och-mening/?q=forskning/vetenskapliga-artiklar/vetenskapens-mal-och-mening/

Dellgran

(2023). Mellan vetenskap och politik—om forskning och kunskapsbildning i änniskobehandlande organisationer. [Between science and politics - on research and knowledge production in human service organisations]. In Johansson

Dellgran

Höjer

(Eds.), Människobehandlande organisationer. Villkor för ledning, styrning och professionellt välfärdsarbete (pp. 78–102). Natur & Kultur.

Dellgran

Höjer

(2000). Kunskapsbildning, akademisering och professionalisering i socialt arbete [Knowledge, academicalisation and professionalisation in social work] [Doctoral dissertation]. Gothenburg University. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/17551

Dellgran

Höjer

(2003). Forskning i praktiken (Research in practice). In Socialt arbete. En genomlysning av ämnet (Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2003:16 R). 197-249 Högskoleverket. https://gamla.uka.se/download/18.12f25798156a345894e298b/1487841893720/0316R.pdf

10.

Dellgran

Höjer

(2012). The politics of social work research—Ph.D. theses in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 15(4), 581–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2012.710875

11.

Dellgran

Höjer

(2017). Varför forskarutbildning? Motiv, aspirationer och drivkrafter bland disputerade sjuksköterskor, lärare och socionomer [Why doctoral education? Motivational factors and aspirations among nurses, teachers and social workers]. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 24(2), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2017.24.2.2394

12.

Denvall

Lernå

Nordesjö

(2014). Föränderliga strukturer: Organisering för kunskapsbaserad socialtjänst i Kronobergs och Kalmar län 2003-2013 [Changing structures: The organization of a knowledgebased social work in the regions of Kronoberg and Kalmar 2003–2015]. Institutionen för socialt arbete vid Linnéuniversitetet. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A707746&dswid=-7577

13.

Denvall

Skillmark

(2021). Bridge over troubled water—closing the research practice gap in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 51(7), 2722–2739. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa055

14.

Dominelli

(2005). Social work research: Contested knowledge for practice. In Adams

Dominelli

Payne

(Eds.), Social work futures: Crossing boundaries, transforming practice (pp. 223–236). Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

Elmersjö

Hoffmann

Hollertz

Hultqvist

(2022). Delaktighet i forskningsprocessen: PAR i en samtida kontext [Participation in the research process: PAR in a contemporary context]. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 29(3-4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2022.29.3-4.4672

16.

Finne

Malmberg-Heimonen

(2023). Evidensbasert praksis—et veiskille i socialt arbeid [Evidence-based practice: A turning point in social work]. Tidskrift for Velferdsforskning, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18261/tfv.26.1.1

17.

Fraser

M. W.

Richman

J. M.

Galinsky

M. J.

Day

S. H.

(2009). Intervention research: Developing social programs. Oxford University Press.

18.

Hammersley

(2009). What is evidence for evidence-based practice? In Otto

H.-U.

Polutta

Ziegler

(Eds.), Evidence-based practice—modernising the knowledge base of social work (1st ed., pp. 139–150). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf08q1

19.

Jacobsson

Meeuwisse

(2020). ‘State governing of knowledge’ – constraining social work research and practice. European Journal of Social Work, 23(2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1530642

20.

James

Lampe

Behnken

Schulz

(2019). Evidence-based practice and knowledgeutilisation—a study of attitudes and practices among social workers in Germany. European Journal of Social Work, 22(5), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1469475

21.

Karlsson

Skoog

Bergström

Olsson

T. M.

(2024). Social workers’ experiential accounts of complex intervention development for youth and families in practice settings : Socialarbetares erfarenheter av att utveckla komplexa insatser för ungdomar och familjer i praktiken. European Journal of Social Work, 2024, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2024.2390471

22.

Maynard

B. R.

Vaughn

M. G.

Sarteschi

C. M.

(2014). The empirical status of social work dissertation research: Characteristics, trends and implications for the field. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(2), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs123

23.

McGlade

James

Mackrill

Patton

Sørensen

K. M.

Taylor

B. J.

Thyer

(2023). Evidence into practice special interest group: Launch. European Social Work Research, 1(2), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1332/BPBB7727

24.

McLaughlin

(2012). Understanding social work research (2nd Ed.). Sage.

25.

Meeuwisse

Jacobsson

(2020). ‘State governing of knowledge’—constraining social work research and practice. European Journal of Social Work, 23(2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1530642

26.

Michie

van Stralen

M. M.

West

(2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(42), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

27.

Morén

Perlinski

Blom

(2015). En domänteori för organisering av socialt arbete i offentlig sektor [A domain theory for the organization of social work in the public sector]. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 22(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2015.22.1.2353

28.

Nilsson

Sunesson

(1988). Konflikt, kontroll, expertis. Att använda social forskning [Conflict, control expertise. The utilization of social research]). Arkiv Förlag.

29.

Nykänen

(2017). “Critical appraisal”, riktlinjer och praktikerns dilemma [“Critical appraisal”, guidelines and the practioner’s dilemma]. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 24(3–4), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2017.24.3-4.2386

30.

O’Hare

(2020). Essential skills of social work practice: Assessment, intervention, and evaluation (3d Ed.). Oxford University Press.

31.

Okpych

N. J.

J. L. H.

(2014). A historical analysis of evidence-based practice in social work: The unfinished journey toward an empirically grounded profession. Social Service Review, 88(1), 3–58. https://doi.org/10.1086/674969

32.

Olsson

T. M.

Sundell

(2016). Research that guides practice: Outcome research in Swedish Ph.D. theses across seven disciplines 1997–2012. Prevention Science, 17(4), 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0640-9

33.

Olsson

T. M.

Sundell

(2023). Publication bias, time-lag bias, and place of publication bias in social intervention research: An exploratory study of 527 Swedish articles published between 1990 and 2019. PLoS ONE, 18(2), e0281110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281110

34.

Olsson

T. M.

von Thiele Schwarz

Hasson

Vira

E. G.

Sundell

(2023). Adapted, adopted, and novel interventions: A whole-population meta-analytic replication of intervention effects. Research on Social Work Practice, 34(8), 860–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315231218646

35.

Petersén

(2017). Evaluations that matter in social work. (Örebro Studies in Social Work, 19) [Doctoral dissertation]. Örebro University Evaluations That Matter in Social Work (diva-portal.org).

36.

Rosen

Proctor

E. K.

Staudt

M. M.

(1999). Social work research and the quest for effective practice. Social Work Research, 23(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/23.1.4

37.

Salonen

Panican

(2021). Genomlysning av socionomfältet: Nuläge och prognoserom socionomers utbildning och arbetsmarknad [Insights into the field of sociology: Current situation and outlook for sociologists’ education and labor market]. Research Reports in Social Work, 2021:6. Department of Social Work, Lund University. https://portal.research.lu.se/sv/publications/b4dc69a0-6cc3-42ee-8a57-504c65d78289

38.

Semigina

Kabachenko

Boyko

(2017). Piloting a social work doctoral programme: Ukraine’s vignette. European Journal of Social Work, 20(2), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1202203

39.

Shek

D. T. L.

Hua Lee

Yan Tam

(2007). Analyses of postgraduate social work dissertations in Taiwan: Implications for social work research and education. International Social Work, 50(6), 821–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728070779

40.

Sheppard

(1995). Social work, social science and practice wisdom. British Journal of Social Work, 25(3), 265–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a056180

41.

Sirotkina

van Ewijk

(2023). There is no future with no acknowledgement of the past-phenomenological approach in analysing postgraduate studies in social work in Estonia. Social Work Education, 42(7), 1019–1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2021.2012564

42.

SOU 2020. 47. Hållbar socialtjänst – en ny Socialtjänstlag. (A sustainable social services—a ny act). https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/sou2020_47

43.

Sundell

Åhsberg

(2016). Trends in methodological quality in controlled trials of psychological and social interventions. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(5), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516633297

44.

Sundell

Olsson

T. M.

(2017). Social intervention research. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780195389678-0254

45.

Sundell

Olsson

T. M.

(2021). Svenska effektutvärderingar av beteendemässiga, psykologiska och sociala insatser 1990–2019. Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. https://forte.se/publikation/svenska-effektutvarderingar-av-beteendemassiga-psykologiska-och-sociala-insatser/

46.

Sunesson

(2016). Socialt arbete som internationellt forskningsområde [Social work as an international research field]. In Meeuwisse

Swärd

Sunesson

Knutagård

(Eds.), Socialt arbete: En grundbok (3rd ed., pp. 146–159). Natur & Kultur.

47.

Svensson

K. (Red.).

Plantin

L. (Red.).

Ritenius Manjer

Skårner

Sernbo

Hansson

Hollertz

Hultqvist

(2024). Kunskap i socialtjänsten. (1 uppl.) (Research reports in social work, 2024: 1.). Department of Social Work, Lund University. https://forskarskolanfys.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FYS-Kunskap-i-socialtjänsten.pdf

48.

Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare [Forte] (2022). Strategisk forskningsagenda för det nationella programmet för tillämpad välfärdsforskning [Strategic research agenda for the national program on applied research on welfare]. https://forte.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/strategisk-forskningsagenda-tvf-april-2022.pdf

49.

Tengvald

Sundell

(2014). Mot bättre vetande. Centrum för utvärdering av socialt arbete och Institutet för utveckling av metoder i socialt arbete, 1992 till 2009 [Towards better knowledge. Center for Evaluation of Social Work and Institute for Development of Methods in Social Work, 1992 to 2009]. Socialstyrelsen. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/

50.

Thyer

(2015). A bibliography of randomized controlled experiments in social work (1949–2013): Solvitur ambulando. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(7), 753–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515599174

51.

Tops

Sunesson

(2006). KUBAS-Erfarenheter från ett samarbetsprojekt mellan socialtjänsten i Helsingborg och Socialhögskolan. (Research reports in social work, 2006:5). Department of Social Work, Lund University. https://portal.research.lu.se/sv/publications/404ed655-d913-40e8-b790-52e735883023

52.

Turley

Roberts

Foster

Warner

El-Banna

Evans

Nurmatov

Walpita

Scourfield

(2021). Staff wellbeing and retention in children’s social work: Systematic review of interventions. Research on Social Work Practice, 32(3), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315211052639

53.

Turley

Roberts

Foster

Willis

Morgan

Warner

Mann

Scourfield

El-Banna

Evans

Lyons Longworth

Levarre-Waters

Walpita

Nuttall

Nurmatov

(2020). Promoting the retention, mental health and wellbeing of child and family social workers: A systematic review of workforce interventions. https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WWCSC_Systematic-Review-of-Workforce-Interventions_July-2020.pdf

54.

Wei

Horns

Sears

S. F.

Huang

Smith

C. M.

Wei

T. L.

(2022). A systematic meta-review of systematic reviews about interprofessional collaboration: Facilitators, barriers, and outcomes. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 36(5), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2021.1973975

55.

Zimbalist

S. E.

(1977). Historic themes and landmarks in social welfare research. Harper & Row.

	Scientific Affiliation
	Clinical Medicine	Caring Sciences	Economy	Forensic Medicine	Odontology	Psychiatry	Psychology	Social Work	Other	All
Domain:
Adult psychiatry	18	22	0	0	1	43	120	0	1	206
Child and youth psychiatry	5	3	0	0	1	7	19	1	1	37
Correctional treatment	2	2	2	2	0	0	1	0	2	7
Social services	27	49	1	2	0	21	24	5	6	134
Child and family services	9	5	0	0	0	5	17	4	4	44
Disability care	2	1	0	0	0	5	0	0	0	8
Elder care	9	21	0	1	0	0	2	0	0	33
Individual social services	7	22	1	1	0	11	5	1	2	49
Somatic healthcare	21	43	0	0	3	7	45	0	0	119
Workplace rehabilitation	2	7	0	0	0	1	12	0	2	24
Total	75	124	3	4	5	79	221	7	12	527

Efficacy and Effectiveness Research on Interventions in Sweden Between 1990 and 2019

Abstract

Keywords

Social Work Research and Effectiveness Studies

The Swedish Context

Method

Search Strategy

Direct Contact

Awarded Research Grants

Published Protocols

University Library Databases

Pooling

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Results

Discussion of Findings

Limitations

Discussion and Applications to Practice

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References