Do views on psychosocial needs of children and adolescents differ among professionals depending on their organisational affiliation? A qualitative study

ABSTRACT

Unit managers and employees in schools, social services, and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) were asked to describe their views on children’s and adolescents’ psychosocial needs when collaboration was required. A descriptive case study design was employed and data were gathered from 23 professionals in six focus groups. The data were analysed by the use of an inductive content approach. Disparities were identified that were interpreted as different approaches to children’s needs, which we designated individual (CAMHS), contextual (social services), and educational (schools) approaches. These were perceived as emerging from the professional representations of children’s needs that were created within each working group. The organisational affiliation seemed however to have a stronger influence than professional education, regarding the view of children’s needs. We suggest that it would be an advantage for professionals to be able to participate in dialogue groups to discuss the meaning of their organisational and professional affiliations, and how this affects their views. Rather than formal knowledge, such dialogues should contain more essential knowledge related to the professionals’ approaches to children’s needs and to the diversities in the way they think and work in a “give-and-take” process. This might influence their way of thinking and working with children and adolescents, and strengthen their understanding of each other’s work.

KEYWORDS:

• Children’s needs
• focus groups
• interprofessional collaboration
• professional representations
• professional view
• shared view

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to the participating professionals in the southeast district of the CAMHS of Stockholm County Council and in the municipality located close to Stockholm.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant awarded for 2014/2015 by the Centre for Psychiatry Research.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by a grant awarded for 2014/2015 by the Centre for Psychiatry Research.