ArticleNIHR open research2024
Strengths-based practice in adult social care: Understanding implementation.
Article in NIHR open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Implementation of a Novel Approach to Scaling the Meeting Centre Intervention for People Living with Dementia and Their Unpaid Carers, Using an Adapted Version of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- What is Family and Group Conferencing for adults? Part 1: Characterising the model and methods of enquiry.NIHR open research · 2025Article
- Measuring the positive potential value of birth in economic evaluation of perinatal interventions.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Article
- Strengths-based practice in adult social care: Understanding implementation.NIHR open research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There has been increasing emphasis towards adopting strengths-based practice (SBP) within adult social care in England. Whilst there is agreement that SBP is the right approach to discharge adult social care duties, there is limited evidence regarding the implementation of SBP. This paper presents findings from the evaluation of the implementation of SBP in fourteen local authorities in one region in England. Methods: We employed a mixed methods research design, drawing on data from a scoping review, 36 interviews with practice leaders and two surveys, one with wider adult social care staff and the other, with external organisations like independent care providers and community and voluntary organisations. Our data collection and analysis were guided by two well established implementation theories: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Interviews were analysed deductively, and surveys were analysed descriptively. Results: Local authorities are at different stages in their implementation journey. The Care Act 2014 and support for SBP demonstrated by key professional groups were seen as major drivers for implementing SBP. Whilst SBP resonated with the professional principles of social workers and occupational therapists, staff did not always have the confidence and skills to adapt to SBP. Changing paperwork and recording systems, providing training opportunities to develop staff competencies, establishing new care pathways, genuine co-production, and senior management buy-in were key enablers supporting implementation. Conclusions: To successfully implement SBP, a whole system approach that meaningfully collaborates with key professionals across sectors is essential. When implemented well, SBP has the potential to empower individuals by focusing on what matters to them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.