Canadian social work education in mental health and addictions: understanding perspectives of faculty members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social workers play an important role in the field of mental health and addictions, but there are concerns about the level of training and education offered by social work programs. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of Canadian social work faculty members on social work education in mental health and addictions. We conducted focus groups and individual interviews with faculty (N = 14) from English and French social work programs in seven Canadian provinces and one territory. Using thematic analysis, we generated four themes linked to social work faculty members’ perspectives on mental health and addictions in Canadian social work education. These included curriculum priorities and pedagogical approaches, gaps in the curricula, challenges to teaching mental health and addictions in social work education, and facilitators to strengthen the teaching of mental health and addictions in social work education. This study has important policy, practice, and education implications. Our findings underline the importance of including mental health in standards and policies set by accrediting associations, teaching students to use critical-clinical approaches, providing faculty with increased support, and developing a community of practice forsocial work faculty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".