The dual faces of service user participation: Implications for empowerment processes in interprofessional practice

Abstract

• Summary: This article reports on an empirical research study exploring and describing variations in how front-line practitioners perceive service user participation (SUP), specifically in interprofessional practice. The settings comprised three Swedish health and social care organizations where the professionals worked in interprofessional teams: a program for chronic pain rehabilitation, a program for surgical treatment of obesity, and a short-term municipal home for older adults. The qualitative study design was informed by a phenomenographic approach and conducted as semi-structured individual interviews with 15 professionals representing nine professions, including social work.

• Findings: The main findings show seven qualitative variations in understanding of SUP: 1) inclusion in activities and social events, 2) obtaining guidance, 3) having self-determination and choice, 4) getting confirmation from and contact with professionals, 5) negotiating for adjustment, 6) personal responsibility through insight, and 7) circumstance surrounding SUP.

• Applications: The interprofessional dimensions discerned in the meaning attributed to SUP are mainly described in terms of amplified opportunities for participation. An interesting aspect of the findings is that in all the variations of perceptions of SUP, there are potentials to reverse to their opposites, that is, paradoxes that can be termed ‘the dual faces of service user participation’. These aspects stress the need for continuing reflection on practices among both front-line practitioners and managers in empowering and paternalistic processes and on constantly improving organizational and policy conditions to facilitate SUP.

Keywords

Social work consumer participation empowerment interdisciplinary interprofessional service user participation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

(2008) Empowerment, participation and social work, 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Adams

Dominelli

Payne

(2005) Transformational social work. In: Adams

Dominelli

Payne

(eds) Social work futures: Crossing boundaries, transforming practice, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–7.

Alexander

Charles

(2009) Caring, mutuality and reciprocity in social worker client relationships: rethinking principles of practices. Journal of Social Work. 9(5): 5–22.

Arnstein

S. R.

(1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(4): 216–224.

Batalden

P. B.

Nelson

E. C.

Gardent

P. B.

Godfrey

M. M.

(2007) Leading macrosystems and mesosystems for microsystem peak performance. In: Nelson

E. C.

Batalden

P. B.

Godfrey

M. M.

(eds) Quality by design: A clinical microsystems approach, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 69–105.

Beresford

(1993) A program for change: Current issues in user involvement and empowerment. In: Beresford

Harding

(eds) A challenge for change: Practical experiences of building user-led services, London: National Institute for Social Work, pp. 9–29.

Braye

Preston-Shoot

(1995) Empowering practice in social care, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bryant

Saxton

Madden

Bath

Robinson

(2008) Consumers’ and providers’ perspectives about consumer participation in drug treatment services: Is there support to do more? What are the obstacles? Drug and Alcohol Review. 27(2): 138–144.

Butow

Harrison

J. D.

Choy

E. T.

Young

J. M.

Spillane

Evans

(2007) Health professional and consumer views on involving breast cancer patients in the multidisciplinary discussion of their disease and treatment plan. Cancer. 110(9): 1937–1944.

10.

Carr

(2007) Participation, power, conflict and change: Theorizing dynamics of service user participation in the social care system of England and Wales. Critical Social Policy. 27: 266–276.

11.

Dahlgren

L. O.

Fallsberg

(1991) Phenomenography as a qualitative approach in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 8(4): 150–156.

12.

D'Amour

Oandasan

(2005) Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: An emerging concept. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 19(Supplement 1): 8–20.

13.

D’Amour

Ferrada-Videla

San Martin Rodriguez

Beaulieu

M.-D.

(2005) The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 19(Supplement 1): 116–131.

14.

Engel

(1994) A functional anatomy of teamwork. In: Leathard

(ed.) Going inter-professional: Working together for health and welfare, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 64–73.

15.

Hämäläinen

(2003) Developing social pedagogy as an academic discipline. In: Gustavsson

Hermansson

H.-E.

Hämäläinen

(eds) Perspectives and theory in social pedagogy, Västra Frölunda: Daidalos AB, pp. 133–153.

16.

Herr

Anderson

G. L.

(2005) The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Karlsson

(2007) Funktionshinder, samtal och självbestämmande. En studie av brukarcentrerade möten [Disability, talk and self-determination. A study of ‘user-centred’ team meetings]. Dissertation, Linköping University.

18.

Kvarnström

Willumsen

Andersson-Gäre

Hedberg

(2011) How service users perceive the concept of participation, specifically in interprofessional practice. British Journal of Social Work. 1–18. , first published online 4 May 2011, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr049.

19.

Lee

F. W.

Charm

L. M.

(2002) The possibility of promoting user participation in working with high-risk youth. British Journal of Social Work. 32(1): 71–92.

20.

Marton

(1981) Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science. 10(2): 177–200.

21.

Marton

Booth

(1997) Learning and awareness, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

22.

Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (1999). Two faces of variation. Paper presented at 8th European Conference for Learning and Instruction, Göteborg University, Sweden.

23.

McCann

T. V.

Baird

Clark

(2008) Mental health professionals’ attitudes toward consumer participation in inpatient units. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 15: 10–16.

24.

Meads

Ashcroft

(2005) Collaboration. In: Meads

Ashcroft with

Barr

Scott

Wild

(eds) The case for interprofessional collaboration: In health and social care, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 15–35.

25.

Murdach

A. D.

(2008) Negotiating with antisocial clients. Social Work. 53(2): 179–182.

26.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of ethics. Approved by the 1996 NASW Delegate Assembly and revised by the 2008 NASW Delegate Assembly. Retrieved 17 March 2011 at: http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp.

27.

Rønning

(2007) Brukarmedverkan och empowerment: Gammalt vin i nya flaskor? [Service user participation and empowerment: Old wine in new bottles?]. In: Askehiem

O. P.

Starrin

(eds) Empowerment i teori och praktik [Empowerment in theory and practice], Malmö: Gleerup, pp. 33–47.

28.

Shaw

MacKinnon

McWilliam

Sumsion

(2004) Consumer participation in the employment rehabilitation process: Contextual factors and implications for practice. Work. 23: 8181–8192.

29.

Shaw

S. N.

(2008) More than one dollop of cortex: Patients’ experiences of interprofessional care at an urban family health centre. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 22(3): 229–237.

30.

Silverman

Doing qualitative research, 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2010.

31.

Svensson

Aagard Nielsen

(2006) Action research and interactive research. In: Aagard Nielsen

Svensson

(eds) Action and interactive research: Beyond practice and theory, Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, pp. 13–44.

32.

Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (2003) Brukarmedverkan i socialtjänstens kunskapsutveckling [Service user participation in the social services knowledge development], Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.

33.

Tew

(2006) Understanding power and powerlessness: Towards a framework for emancipatory practice in social work. Journal of Social Work. 6(1): 33–51.

34.

Thylefors

Persson

Hellström

(2005) Team types, perceived efficiency and team climate in Swedish cross-professional teamwork. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 19(2): 102–114.

35.

Willumsen

Severinsson

(2005) Parents’ collaboration and participation in a residential child care setting. International Journal of Child & Family Welfare. 8(1): 19–31.