Facilitators, barriers, and enablers of social workers’ utilization of an evidence-based parenting program: An exploratory mixed-method study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Social workers play a critical role in delivering evidence-based parenting programs. • Knowing more about factors that influence social workers’ sustained delivery is needed. • This mixed-method study surveyed an international sample of 301 social workers. • Consistency between qualitative and quantitative findings was observed. • Qualitative findings provided more information on the most significant influencers. Social workers play a vital role in both the child welfare systems and the dissemination of evidence-based parenting programs aimed at reducing child maltreatment rates at scale. However, notable knowledge gap remains on factors influencing social workers’ program delivery. Using the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program as an example, the present study aims to investigate the facilitators (what aided the implementation), barriers (what hindered the implementation), and enablers (what changes would help implementation) of social workers’ implementation of an evidence-based parenting program. An international sample of 301 social workers trained in Triple P between 2012 and 2020 from six countries were included (i.e., U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Denmark). A mixed-method approach was used which combined item-level regression analyses with quantitative and thematic analysis with qualitative data. Organizational/team/peer support and program resources were identified as strong themes in both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Engaging disadvantaged parents and online delivery were identified as a significant challenge for social workers in qualitative analysis. The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of the factors influencing social workers’ implementation of parenting programs. Implications of the present findings were discussed.
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 | 0.032 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".