CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Boonzaaier E, Truter E, Fouche A. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021; 123: e105888. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2021, Elsevier Publishing) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
CPSWs11Child protection social workers. perform critical duties focused on the statutory protection of maltreated children or children at risk of maltreatment. Although some studies on CPSW risks are available, to date, only two (outdated) knowledge syntheses, with some limitations, were recorded. As such, a scoping review based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley (2005) was conducted to summarize existing studies on CPSW risks and to identify gaps in research associated with risks experienced by CPSWs. Online databases were used to identify papers published between 1990 and April 2020. A total of 47 peer-reviewed studies were included, and analysed thematically within the socio-ecological model. Developed themes include that CPSWs experience adversities on the following levels: (1) intrapersonal level risks (specific adverse personality traits; being ill-prepared for the job and a personal history of maltreatment); (2) interpersonal level risks (unsupportive colleagues; client attacks on CPSWs, and challenging clients); (3) institutional level risks (discouraging workspaces; detrimental workplace duties and work pressure); (4) community level risks (negative public image of CPSWs; unrealistic expectations placed on CPSWs; uncooperative role players) and (5) policy level risk factors. The subsequent negative impact on CPSWs, CPSW organizations and society are also deliberated. Based on the findings of this review, further empirical research, specifically qualitative studies which explore the lived experiences of CPSWs' risk need to be conducted to better understand the situation of CPSWs, so as to develop interventions that could reduce risk exposure, potentially leading to more effective service delivery. Language: en |
|
Keywords |
Adversity; Child protection social workers; Child welfare workers; Risks; Scoping review; Socio-ecological model |