Adolescents’ Subjective Views about Interprofessional Team Participation
A Q-methodological Study
Background: One common arrangement in the Norwegian child welfare system is the interprofessional collaborating team, not unlike the English core group. This team is often referred to as the ‘responsible team’ (RT) and is arranged when a child has needs that call for several services. Few studies about interprofessional collaboration focus on views of service users and, in particular, those of child and adolescent service users.
Aims and objectives: The present study aims to explore adolescents’ subjective views about their participation in RTs. This study contributes further knowledge about the field of interprofessional collaboration, especially regarding the participation of adolescents.
Design: Non-experimental, exploratory research design.
Methods: Q-methodology was used to explore 26 adolescents’ subjective views about their collaboration within the responsible teams that were formed to support their welfare. Q-methodology is known as being particularly suitable for revealing vulnerable people’s nuanced subjective views and perspectives. The adolescents in this study were asked to rank order a set of 42 statements (Q-set). PQMethod was used to analyse the data.
Results: Four factors emerged and revealed patterns of shared views among the adolescents. Factor 1: Optimistic and engaged despite bad experiences, Factor 2: Strive to not be defeated by their helpers, Factor 3: Battle weary and resigned, and Factor 4: Content, positive and full of trust.
Implications: The present study may be relevant to researchers, health and social policy makers, in addition to professionals working in services that aim to improve children’s situations through interprofessional collaboration.
Bolin, A. (2015). Children’s agency in interprofessional collaboration. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(1), 50-66.
Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, S. (1991/1992). A Q methodological tutorial. Retrieved from http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/Primer1.html
Brown, K., & White, K. (2006). Exploring the Evidence Base for Integrated Children’s Services. Scottish Executive Education Department, Edinburgh.
Child Welfare Act, 17. June 1992, no. 100 Barnevernloven in Norwegian.
Cooper, H., & Spencer-Dawe, E. (2006). Involving service users in interprofessional education: Narrowing the gap between theory and practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(6), 603-617.
Cooper, M., Evans, Y., & Pybis, J. (2016). Interagency collaboration in children and young people's mental health: A systematic review of outcomes, facilitating factors and inhibiting factors. Child: Care, Health and Development, doi: 10.1111/cch.12322.
Donner, J. C. (2001). Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An introduction to the methodology. In R. A. Krueger, M. A. Casey, J. Donner, S. Kirsch, & J. N. Maack (Eds.), Social analysis: Selected tools and techniques (paper number 36). Washington D.C.: Social Development Department, The World Bank.
Ellingsen, I. T., Schjelderup, L., & Omre, C. (2014). Barn og unges medvirkning i barnevernet [Children and young people’s participation in the child welfare]. In I. T. Ellingsen & R. Østerhaug (Eds.), Barnevernets brennpunkt. Bestlutningsgrunnlag og beslutninger [The child welfare’s fire point. Decision basis and decisions] (pp. 115-136) .Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Ellingsen, I. T., Shemmings, D., & Størksen, I. (2011). The concept of ‘family’ among Norwegian adolescents in long-term foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28(4), 301-318.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality [translated by Robert Hurley], Vol. I. New York: Pantheon.
Fylkesmannen I Sogn og Fjordane [County Administration in Sogn and Fjordane]. Referat frå ansvarsgruppemøte. [Minutes of responsibility group meetings]. Retrieved 11 December 2015 from: https://www.fylkesmannen.no/Sogn-og-Fjordane/Barn-og-foreldre/Barnevern/Referat-fra-ansvarsgruppemote/
Garstka, T. A., Lieberman, A., Biggs, J., Thompson, B., & Levy, M. M. (2014). Barriers to cross-systems collaboration in child welfare, education, and the courts: Supporting education well-being of youth in care through systems change. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 8(2), 190-211. doi: 10.1080/15548732.2014.888697.
Green, C. (2013). Relative distancing: A grounded theory of how learners negotiate the interprofessional. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(1), 34-42.doi: 10.3109/13561820.2012.720313.
Green, C. (2014). The making of the interprofessional arena in the United Kingdom: A social and political history. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28(2): 116-122. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2013.867840.
Harris, A., & Allen, T. (2011). Young people’s views of multi-agency working. British Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 405-419. doi: 10.1080/01411921003692876.
Hesjedal, E., Hetland, H., & Iversen, A. C. (2015). Interprofessional collaboration: Self-reported successful collaboration by teachers and social workers in multidisciplinary teams. Child & Family Social Work, 20, 437–445. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12093.
Lykkeslet, E., & Gjengedal, E. (2007). Methodological problems associated with practice-close research. Qualitative Health Research, 17 (5), 699-704.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Iowa: Sage University Paper.
Munro, B. H. (1997). Statistical Methods for health care research – 3rd edition. New York: Lippincott.
Norwegian Ministry of Children and Equality (2009). Det du gjør – gjør det helt. Bedre samordning av tjenester for utsatte barn og unge [What you do – do it wholly. Better coordination of services for vulnerable children and young people]. NOU 2009:22. Oslo: Barne og likestillingsdepartementet.
Oliver, C., Mooney, A., & Statham, J. (2010). Integrated working: A review of the evidence. London: Institute of Education.
O’Reilly, M., Vostanis, P., Taylor, H., Day, C., Street, C., & Wolpert, M. (2013). Service user perspectives of multiagency working: A qualitative study with children with educational and mental health difficulties and their parents. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 18, 202-209. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2012.00674.x.
Reeves, S., Lewin, S., Espin, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2010). Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd and CAIPE.
Schmolck, P. (2002). PQMethod. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from www.lrz.de/-schmolck/qmethod/
Shaw, S. (2008). More than a dollop of cortex: Patients’ experiences of interprofessional care at an urban family health centre. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22(3), 229-237.
Shemmings, D. (2006). Quantifying qualitative data: An illustrative example of the use of Q methodology in psychological research. Qualitative Research inPsychology, 3, 147-165.
Sitzia, J., Cotterell, P., & Richardson, A. (2006). Interprofessional collaboration with service users in the development of cancer services: The cancer partnership project. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(1), 60-74.
Skivenes, M., & Willumsen, E. (2005). Brukermedvirkning i barnevernets ansvarsgrupper [Service user involvement in the child welfare’s responsibility groups]. In E. Willumsen (Ed.), Brukernes Medvirkning! [The service users’ involvement!] (pp. 94 –111). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). ‘Q methodology’, in J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 178-192). London: Sage.
Stephenson, W. (1936). The inverted factor technique. British Journal of Psychology, 26 (4), 344-61.
Stephenson, W. (1961). Scientific creed – 1961, The Psychological Record, 11, 1-25.
Sæbjørnsen, S. E. N., & Willumsen, E. (2015). Service user participation in interprofessional teams in child welfare in Norway: Vulnerable adolescents' perceptions. Child & Family Social Work. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12242.
Sæbjørnsen, S. E. N, Ellingsen, I. T., Good, J. M. M., & Ødegård, A. (2016). Combining a naturalistic and theoretical Q sample approach: An empirical research illustration. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
van Exel, J., & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q Methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved from http://www.qmethod.org.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research. Theory, method and interpretation. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Widmark, C., Sandahl, C., Piuva, K., & Bergman, D. (2013). Parents’ experiences of collaboration between welfare professionals regarding children with anxiety or depression – an explorative study. International Journal of Integrated Care, 13, 1-11.
Willumsen, E., Sirnes, T., & Ødegård, A. (2014) Tverrprofesjonelt samarbeid – en fortsettelse [Interprofessional collaboration – a continuation]. In E. Willumsen & A. Ødegård (Eds.), Tverrprofesjonelt samarbeid – et samfunnsoppdrag [Interprofessional collaboration – A social assignment] (pp. 19-29). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Wolf, A. (2004). Research strategies for policy relevance. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23, 65-85.
World Health Organization (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice (ref. number WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3). Retrieved July 4, 2016 at http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/framework_action/en/
Ødegård, A. (2007). Exploring perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in child mental health care. International Journal of Integrated Care, 7(1-13). Retrieved at: http://www.ijic.org/
Ødegård, A., & Strype, J. (2009). Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in child mental health care in Norway. Journal of Interprofessional Care, May 23 (3), 286-296.
Ødegård, A. Iversen, H. P., & Willumsen, E. (2014). Samhandlingsreformen – hvilken betydning vil den få for utsatte barn og unge? [The collaboration reform – What significance will it have for children and young people?]. In I. T. Ellingsen, & R. Østerhaug (Eds.), Barnevernets brennpunkt. Bestlutningsgrunnlag og beslutninger [ The Childwelfare’s fire point. Decision basis and decisions ] (pp.181-196). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.