In Norway, child welfare responsibilities are divided between state‐run (SCW) and municipal (MCW) agencies. This study explores MCW practitioners' experiences of implementing a therapeutic model tailored by SCW for MCW to aid adolescents with severe and co‐occurring problems and their families. In this qualitative study, 12 MCW practitioners participated in semistructured interviews about the implementability of the therapeutic model. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The codebook approach Framework Analysis was used to develop codes, initial themes and final themes through several iterations. Each theme was reviewed for convergence and divergence, across interviews. Practitioners' responses to the Intervention Usability Scale were used to supplement our analysis. Five themes emerged as follows: (1) Internal Motivation: practitioners were driven by the desire to do good; (2) Finally, We Have Something to Offer: highlighting the importance of methods that meet diverse needs; (3) Expectations and Entanglements: describing challenging incongruencies between implementors, practitioners and agencies; (4) Working Methodically: the significance of rigorous CW practices; and (5) Lost in Translation: implementation challenges language, culture and profession. Tailoring practices to resource‐limited communities is commendable but requires strengthening inter‐ and intra‐agency collaboration. Adopting novel practices in MCW settings requires professional implementors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kvamme et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: