Exploring Social Work professionals’ Experiences of the Mindfulness-Based Social Work and Self-Care Programme: A Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence for the potential of mindfulness-based programmes to support improved social work practice and self-care is growing. The aim of this focus group study was to explore social workers’ (n = 13) experiences of the Mindfulness-based Social Work and Self-care programme (MBSWSC). Thematic analysis highlighted two superordinate themes: benefits to direct social work practice and coping with the social work role. Four subordinate themes highlighted the different social work practice components that were enhanced through MBSWSC participation: social work assessment, service user engagement and team working, working to social work values, and social work skills. Three subordinate themes identified improvements in individual processes which supported enhanced stress coping: moving from avoidant to approach coping, improved boundaries, increased emotional awareness and reduced negative thinking. Our findings indicate that the MBSWSC programme can have a multi-faceted positive effect on social work practice, and on social work professional’s capacity to cope with their role.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".