Supportive Practice with Carers of People with Substance Misuse Problems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
While there is increased recognition of the role of family carers in supporting adults with social care needs, some groups of carers are overlooked or hidden from professional view. Carers of people with substance misuse problems may be among this group since they are at risk of feeling guilty and stigmatised; targeting and eligibility criteria may concentrate professionals’ activities on people with high levels of need for practical support and there may be complex family dynamics where the role of carer does not fit traditional models. This article draws on a study of carers’ workers (professionals whose role entailed a specific remit to work with carers, such as carers support workers) and family carers undertaken in four areas of England. A total of 86 interviews were conducted (late 2011–2012), of which, just over a quarter (26%) involved some discussion of substance misuse. The findings were analysed thematically. The findings from the study were later reported to a focus group of practitioners and carers with experience of drug-and-alcohol support for validation in 2014. Key themes in relation to social work practice with carers of people with alcohol and other drug problems were those of insecure funding of voluntary sector carer services; balancing generic support for family carers and specific support for certain groups of carers; and feelings among carers that the drug-and-alcohol problems experienced by the person they were supporting contributed to them feeling excluded from general carers’ support. The article concludes that drug and alcohol social workers should be alert to the implications of the Care Act 2014 and its provision for carers, and that carers’ workers should be confident in being able to refer carers to appropriate support in either general or specific settings or raise this as an unmet need if such provision is not adequate locally. Social work trainers and educators should ensure they are working within evidence-based interventions to enhance professional capacity and capability.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».