Self-perceived competence and willingness to ask about intimate partner violence among Swedish social workers

Figures & data

Table 1. Features of the respondents (n = 782–787).

Men	%	10.3
Women	%	89.7
Child welfare (CW)	%	41.6
Social assistance (SoA)	%	20.5
Substance abuse (SuA)	%	13.0
Family law (FL)	%	9.3
General unit/other (GO)	%	15.6
Degree in social work	%	89.3
Degree in other area	%	9.0
No academic degree	%	1.7
Age	M	42.0
Number of years as social worker	M	11.6
Number of years at present office	M	6.9

Table 2. Frequency and proportion of IPV in PSS social work according to area of specialisation.

		GO	CW	Su A	So A	FL	All
Frequency of IPV cases^a n = 725
Encounter IPV every week	%	15.7	12.5	4.2	1.3	25.4	10.9
Encounter IPV every month	%	32.2	32.2	28.4	28.2	50.7	32.7
Encounter IPV every six months	%	30.4	27.5	41.1	20.8	15.5	27.2
Encounter IPV once a year or less	%	21.7	27.8	26.3	49.7	8.5	29.2
Proportion of IPV in caseload^b n = 723	M	20.3	21.5	14.0	6.7	31.0	18.2
	SD	22.9	19.5	14.9	7.4	24.7	19.7

^aPearson chi-square p < .000.

^bOne-way ANOVA p < .000.

Table 3. Self-perceived IPV competence according to area of specialisation (n = 682).

		GO	CW	Su A	So A	FL	All
Mean self-perceived competence score^a (1–10)	M (SD)	5.33 (1.98)	5.37 (1.93)	4.40 (2.06)	4.51 (2.06)	5.49 (1.41)	5.06 (1.99)
Proportion with high competence^b (>7.00)	%	24.1	20.9	8.8	11.1	13.1	17.0
Proportion with low competence^b (<4.00)	%	27.9	25.5	47.3	40.3	14.8	30.9

^aOne-way ANOVA p < .000.

^bPearson chi-square p < .000.

Table 4. Factors related to self-perceived competence.

	B	CI (95%)
Age	0.027***	0.015–0.040
Men	0.265	−0.180–0.710
Social assistance	−0.784**	−1.247–0.321
Child welfare	−0.016	−0.428–0.395
Family law	−0.124	−0.722–0.474
Substance abuse	−0.851**	−1.363–0.339
Training seminar	0.447*	0.107–0.788
Training day	0.864***	0.427–1.301
Training several days	1.872***	1.444–2.300

Notes: Multiple linear regression analysis (n = 641), adjusted R² = 0.18. Reference categories: women, general unit, no training.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5. Frequency of asking about IPV and relevance of reasons not to ask.

		GO	CW	Su A	So A	FL	All
Frequency of asking clients about IPV^c (n = 754)
Ask always/often	%	35.3	33.4	53.1	23.4	83.1	38.9
Ask when special reason	%	62.2	61.4	44.9	64.6	15.5	55.7
Very rarely/never ask	%	2.5	5.2	2.0	12.0	1.4	5.4
Relevance^a of reasons for not asking (n = 683–696)
No sign of IPV	%	57.0	56.6	43.5	69.2	29.5	55.2
Case not related to IPV	%	57.0	56.6	43.5	69.2	29.5	51.6
Forgetting to ask	%	28.0	25.2	40.0	25.2	21.7	27.4
Client may be offended	%	14.8	9.6	17.4	20.0	5.1	13.3
Unsure of how to ask	%	11.2	8.5	15.1	18.8	0.0	11.2
Don’t know what to do in case of IPV	%	5.5	3.2	8.5	7.6	0.0	4.9

^aIndicates per cent of respondents stating that the different factors were relevant or rather relevant.

^cPearson chi-square p < 0.000.

Table 6. Factors related to always or often asking about IPV.

	OR	CI (95%)
Men	0.663	0.374–1.173
Social assistance	0.747	0.416–1.341
Child welfare	0.931	0.563–1.542
Family law	10.873***	4.502–26.261
Substance abuse	2.346**	1.266–4.348
Attended seminar/s	1.308	0.841–2.033
Day training	1.103	0.630–1.931
Several days training	2.061*	1.179–3.604
Low competence score (<4.00)	1.003	0.653–1.539
High competence score (>7.00)	1.977**	1.216–3.214
Access to administrative procedures for identifying IPV	2.334***	1.590–3.427

Notes: Multiple logistic regression analyses (n = 640). Reference categories: women, general unit, no training, medium competence score, no access to administrative procedures.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Nagelkerke R² = 0.23, Hosmer & Lemeshow χ²= 4.204 p = 0.838.

Table 7. Odds ratio of coming across IPV at least once a month when always or often asking clients of IPV.

		N	OR
All areas of specialisation^a		635	2.591***
Separate analyses for each area of specialisation^b	General unit	102	2.634
	Social assistance	137	11.761***
	Child welfare	252	2.074**
	Family law	56	2.814
	Substance abuse	88	0.654

Note: Multiple logistic regression analyses, asking less often – asking when special reason, rarely or never asking was combined as reference category.

^aArea of specialisation, level of IPV training and competence held constant.

^bFile split into groups, looking at each area of specialisation individually. Level of IPV training and competence held constant.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 8. Access to IPV training and administrative procedures.

		GO	CW	Su A	So A	FL	All
IPV training^a (n = 677)
Any IPV training	%	72.9	70.4	49.3	62.0	77.4	68.2
Several days of IPV training	%	15.0	20.7	12.1	11.7	19.4	16.7
One day IPV training	%	22.4	15.0	15.4	12.4	9.7	15.2
Single seminar/s on IPV	%	35.5	34.6	31.9	38.0	48.4	36.3
No IPV training	%	27.1	29.6	40.7	38.0	22.6	31.8
Administrative procedures for identifying IPV^b (n = 737)
Have procedures	%	67.5	58.2	69.0	55.4	84.5	63.0
Follow procedures	%	45.3	33.9	51.5	40.5	73.2	43.1

^aPearson chi-square p = .037.

^bPearson chi-square p < .000.