Introduction
The principle that social care practice should become more strongly
informed by research receives widespread support (Wakefield et al.,
2022), including from practitioners themselves. Studies indicate that
social workers, and other practitioners working in social care, hold
positive views about the importance of research for practice (Wakefield
et al., 2021; Despard, 2016; Finne, 2021; Gray et al., 2014). However,
the same body of research also suggests that practitioners have low
levels of confidence, knowledge, and skills in the use of research, and
that some practitioners are uncertain about its value. In 1999, Sheldon
and Macdonald described this ‘research-practice gap’ as a gap between
perceptions of the potential value research and its actual application
in practice. Despite many initiatives to promote the use of research,
Rojas and Stenström (2020) claim that there is a growing sense of
“things not going fast enough”. Writing about social work, Parrish et
al. (2023) argue that, despite sustained effort over the past three
decades, “it is unclear whether these efforts have increased the
adoption of this process in social work practice”.
In this paper we report results of a survey that sought to understand
contemporary patterns of engagement with research among practitioners in
adult social care. Given the significance of the workplace as the
setting for the adoption of new practices, we took an organisation-wide
approach to explore the perspectives of a range of practitioner groups.
We also maintained a concern with the general use of research in
decision-making, as opposed to a more specific interest in
evidence-based practice (EBP). There is substantial - and sometimes
sceptical - debate on what the application of research evidence should
look like in social work (e.g. Gray and McDonald, 2006), occupational
therapy (e.g. Dougherty, Toth-Cohen and Tomlin, 2016), and social care
more generally. Much of this revolves around the appropriateness of EBP
as a model with roots in medicine and healthcare. In the UK context,
Wakefield et al. (2022) propose that, while there exist critiques and
differences of opinion, there is a consensus that practitioners (in any
field) should be equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to
make use of research evidence and to have the opportunity to engage with
research activity. Reflecting similar moves for a common ground, in the
US context Parrish et al (2023) note that the ‘new terminology’ of EBP
is taking on a more inclusive use to refer to a range of forms of
practitioner engagement with research evidence, rather than necessarily
reflecting a specific model.
Plath (2014) argues the need for an organisational perspective on
implementing evidence-based practice. The dominant model for
understanding the use of research among practitioners has entailed a
focus on the role of individuals as decision-makers. This has led to a
neglect of the diverse team and systems-based environment within which
social care practitioners work. Plath’s perspective emphasises the
importance of addressing how different practitioner groups engage with
research in different organisational situations. This has been partially
addressed in some literature on the application of research evidence
among practitioners who differ in terms of their level of seniority,
professional background, education, and practice experience. For
example, taking an organisational perspective, Bäck et al. (2020)
reported that tiers of management held different interpretations and
applications for the use of research evidence. Staff in senior positions
focused on strategic- and system-level issues, such as external
comparisons and evidence of innovation in other authorities; middle
managers focused on evidence relating to implementation at staff level,
such as motivating and involving staff. Similarly, studies by Zardo and
Collie (2015) and Gudjonsdottir et al. (2017) found that research
evidence was applied differently by management and frontline
practitioner staff groups. In adult social care there is also some
evidence of profession-based differences in engagement with
evidence-based practice. For example, Gudjonsdottir et al. (2017) found
that physical therapists were more open to EBP and found EBP more
appealing than their social work colleagues. Such interprofessional
differences are likely to be particularly significant in contexts where
decision-making takes place within multi-disciplinary teams.
Placement students and newly qualified staff with recent education in
the application of research can experience difficulties exercising their
skills when they enter organisational settings. Gleeson et al. (2021)
found that social work students on placement encountered “negative,
often dismissive views of research and experience little in the way of
role-modelling of evidence-based practice”. Teater and Chonody (2018)
reported that social work practitioners felt insufficiently prepared by
their professional qualifications to use their education in research. In
another study, recently graduated occupational therapists found it
challenging to consistently implement research skills in their daily
practice (Di Tommaso et al., 2019).
Work-based encounters with research may affect perceptions of research
use. Regarding occupational therapists and physical therapists, a study
by Thomas et al. 2020 identified a positive association between
participation in empirical research activities and confidence in
applying EBP. However, duration of general practice experience appears
to be another factor. Gray et al. (2014) found that social work staff
with long service were more likely to report research-based changes to
their practice. Parrish et al. (2023) found that greater years as a
licensed social work practitioner was associated with more positive
attitudes about, and less perceived difficulty with, evidence-based
practice.
Pressures associated with working in organisations are frequently cited
by practitioners as a barrier to using research. Often this is expressed
in terms of lack of time, pressures on time, or challenges with time
management (Upton et al., 2014; Finne, Ekeland and Malmberg-Heimonen,
2022; Scurlock-Evans and Upton, 2015). A further leading area of
difficulty concerns training on the use of research evidence, notably
its availability, appropriateness, and the opportunities to make use of
the learning in practice (Scurlock-Evans and Upton, 2015; Cooke, et
al.,2008), with generally fewer opportunities for those working in
social care, compared with staff working in healthcare settings
(Wittenberg and Hancock, 2018; DHSC, 2018).
Regarding social workers, studies by Gray et al. (2014) and Van der Zwet
et al. (2019) both found that some practitioners describe their
engagement with research evidence in vague rather than specific terms.
Lack of clarity was accompanied by reservations about the ‘EBP agenda’
itself. For example, Gray et al. (2014) found that some staff had
concerns about the relevance, useability, and applicability of EBP to
their practice. There are also indications that practitioners may take
different routes to engage with research evidence. In a related study
Gray et al. (2015) report a distinction between those practitioners who
preferred to engage in the whole EBP process themselves and those
preferring to adopt practice guidelines based on appraisal of research
evidence by other experts.
To date much investigation on research use in adult social care has
focused on specific professional groups or specific professional
hierarchies. In contrast, the study reported here builds on
organisation-wide approaches with an aim to assess the views,
experiences, and use of research among diverse staff groups working in
adult social care services. Our study is based upon a baseline survey
conducted as part of the initial stage of ConnectED (Connecting Evidence
with Decision Making). ConnectED is a National Institute for Health and
Care Research funded programme that intends to build the capacity of
adult social care organisations to use research (Macdonald et al.,
2022).