Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Working with different logics: A case study on the use of the Addiction Severity Index in addiction treatment practice
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Work.
2013 (English)In: Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, ISSN 1455-0725, Vol. 30, no 3, 179-199 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

AIM - This article explores the implementation and use of the Addiction Severity Index in addiction treatment practice, both as a clinical instrument and as a way of facilitating outcome measurement. This is regarded as incorporating laboratory logic into clinical practice characterised by the logic of care. DATA - The data is based on ethnographic fieldwork in a Swedish metropolitan social service agency known for its systematic ASI work. RESULTS - The findings suggest that much effort must be dedicated to co-ordinate activities in the agency in line with the laboratory logic, making sure that the interviews are administered systematically. In use, the ASI and the variables in clinical practice are adjusted to each other, making it possible to follow both logics at the same time. In some cases, however, there is a conflict: the ASI becomes an extra task that does not further the clinical work. Once collected, the ASI data must be co-ordinated in line with other information. This has not yet been realised in the agency, which makes the value of the ASI data unknown. CONCLUSIONS - It requires hard work to handle the two logics simultaneously in addiction treatment practice: activities must be co-ordinated, and instruments and variables in clinical practice must be continuously tinkered with. Further, outcome measurement is not only about systematic use of standardised instruments, but much work must be done after the ASI data has been collected.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 30, no 3, 179-199 p.
Keyword [en]
Addiction severity index (ASI), standardised assessment instruments, outcome measurement, clinical practice, ethnography, Sweden
National Category
Social Work
Research subject
Social Work
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-90384DOI: 10.2478/nsad-2013-0015ISI: 000318420500006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-90384DiVA: diva2:625821
Note

AuthorCount:1;

Available from: 2013-06-05 Created: 2013-06-03 Last updated: 2016-02-08Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Evidence-based practice behind the scenes: How evidence in social work is used and produced
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Evidence-based practice behind the scenes: How evidence in social work is used and produced
2016 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The aim of this dissertation is to examine empirically what Evidence-based practice (EBP) and its standardized procedures become when put into practice in social work. EBP builds on the idea that professional practice should be based on systematic and reliable knowledge of the interventions and instruments used in this work. This implies a standardization of both research and practice that has been highly contested. Inspired by works within science and technology studies (STS), this dissertation analyses the actual content of the standardized procedures and their uses in social work practice.

The dissertation examines a ‘critical case’, a substance abuse social services agency that has worked extensively for several years at implementing EBP, and consists of four papers focusing on three standardized procedures used by the agency in order to enact EBP: 1) the Addiction severity index (ASI) assessment instrument; 2) the psychosocial intervention Motivational interviewing, and 3) the decision-making model Critical appraisal (CA). Ethnographic methods were employed to study the agency’s concrete uses of the standardized procedures in daily practice. MI was also followed in the research literature as it became established as an ‘evidence-based’ intervention.

Fundamentally, the development of the standards of EBP can be a messy and paradoxical process. In the stabilization of MI, its differences and ‘fluidity’ have eventually been made to disappear and left a stable ‘evidence-based’ object.

Findings from the ethnographic studies show that EBP, as enacted in the agency’s daily practice, is a bureaucratic project where the agency’s managers have decided on and control the use of a set of standards. Thus, what constitutes relevant evidence is based not on professional discussion within the agency but is ultimately determined by the managers.

In practice, the standards introduce new logics that cause tensions within the agency, tensions which the social workers are left to handle. Main conflicts concern how the client work is ordered and contradictory organizational rationales. The three standards are used to varying extent, which can be understood by examining what they seek to standardize and how they are put to work. CA was not used at all, mainly due to its design. Disregarding organizational rationales that are unavoidable within the social services, it could not be adapted to the agency’s work. With ASI and MI the situation was different, mostly because of their organizational adaptability. ASI could be implemented in several phases of the agency’s work flow resulting in adjustments of both the instrument and the work flow. As a ‘fluid intervention’, MI was constrained by, but also adjustable to the organization. It was thus possible for both ASI and MI to transform and be transformed by pre-existing practices, in effect creating new practices.

A major conclusion is that EBP and its standardized procedures is a more dynamic and multifaceted process than previously acknowledged in social work. Rather than a deterministic one-way path, there are different kinds, degrees, and mutual transformations of standardization processes, which must be appreciated in research and in practical efforts to implement EBP. Given the importance of the organization in professional social work, there is a need to move away from individualistic conceptions of EBP and to consider what evidence use might mean from an organizational perspective.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2016. 81 p.
Series
Stockholm studies in social work, ISSN 0281-2851 ; 32
Keyword
Evidence-based practice, Evidence-based medicine, Addiction severity index, Motivational interviewing, critical appraisal, ethnography, social work, substance abuse, science and technology studies, standardization
National Category
Social Work
Research subject
Social Work
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-126503 (URN)978-91-7649-345-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2016-03-18, Aula Svea, Sveavägen 160, Stockholm, 10:00
Opponent
Supervisors
Funder
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare
Note

At the time of the doctoral defense, the following paper was unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 4: Manuscript.

Available from: 2016-02-24 Created: 2016-02-04 Last updated: 2017-02-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Björk, Alexander
By organisation
Department of Social Work
Social Work

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 451 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf