Advanced search
1 file | 20.10 KB Add to list

‘Outreach’ or ‘real-life context work’? Four profiles of working in the real-life context of people.

(2023)
Author
Organization
Abstract
‘Outreach’ or ‘real-life context work’? Four profiles of working in the real-life context of people. Introduction. Although ‘outreach’ is a central element of deinstitutionalization and an important methodology in the field of social and medical services, the concept itself lacks clarity. Neither a common definition that can be used across sectors and target groups, nor a typology of different types of entering the real-life context of people is available. On a research level, comparative research on the effectiveness of different types is hampered. On a policy level there is a dearth of tools to decide which type of ‘outreach’ supports which objective. In daily practice this gap creates confusion in use of terminology and difficulties in delineation of tasks and responsibilities. Methods. An online survey on ‘real-life context work’ was set up in the fields of mental health, social work, nursery, youthwork, orthopedagogics, forensic work, … in Flanders (Belgium), focusing on the objectives and characteristics of the different practices (n=902). A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to determine profiles of real-life context work. Results. The LCA resulted in a typology of 4 classes of ‘real-life context’ work. The first class ‘outreach’ (32%) shows high scores on working in public space, casefinding, participating in the daily life of clients and realizing fundamental rights. The second class ‘family work’ (25%) is mainly characterized by working with families, home visits and a focus on the development of the child, safety in the family and broadening the clients network. The third class ‘mobile work’ (22%) is characterized by working with individuals who are mainly professional referred, making home visits and has as main objective supporting independence and quality of life. The fourth class (20%) ‘inreach’ shows high scores on working in other organizations, working with individuals, self-referral and with a focus on social reintegration, employment and (mental) health. Conclusion. The findings of this study illustrate the existence of different profiles of ‘real-life context work’. Insight into the four distinct classes of ‘real-life context work’ will provide a base for comparative research, qualitative ‘outreach’ policy making and conceptual clarity for field workers.
Keywords
outreach, typology, real-life context work

Downloads

  • abstract Leuven sept 2023.docx
    • full text (Accepted manuscript)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • Word
    • |
    • 20.10 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Dewaele, Cis, et al. “Outreach” or “Real-Life Context Work”? Four Profiles of Working in the Real-Life Context of People. 2023.
APA
Dewaele, C., Vanderplasschen, W., De Maeyer, J., Reynaert, D., & De Witte, N. (2023). “Outreach” or “real-life context work”? Four profiles of working in the real-life context of people. Presented at the 6th Conference on Assertive Outreach, Leuven.
Chicago author-date
Dewaele, Cis, Wouter Vanderplasschen, Jessica De Maeyer, Didier Reynaert, and Nico De Witte. 2023. “‘Outreach’ or ‘Real-Life Context Work’? Four Profiles of Working in the Real-Life Context of People.” In .
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Dewaele, Cis, Wouter Vanderplasschen, Jessica De Maeyer, Didier Reynaert, and Nico De Witte. 2023. “‘Outreach’ or ‘Real-Life Context Work’? Four Profiles of Working in the Real-Life Context of People.” In .
Vancouver
1.
Dewaele C, Vanderplasschen W, De Maeyer J, Reynaert D, De Witte N. “Outreach” or “real-life context work”? Four profiles of working in the real-life context of people. In 2023.
IEEE
[1]
C. Dewaele, W. Vanderplasschen, J. De Maeyer, D. Reynaert, and N. De Witte, “‘Outreach’ or ‘real-life context work’? Four profiles of working in the real-life context of people.,” presented at the 6th Conference on Assertive Outreach, Leuven, 2023.
@inproceedings{01HGAYXCD0XZ3FB06FQHX0FJQS,
  abstract     = {{‘Outreach’ or ‘real-life context work’? Four profiles of working in the real-life context of people.

Introduction. Although ‘outreach’ is a central element of deinstitutionalization and an important methodology in the field of social and medical services, the concept itself lacks clarity. Neither a common definition that can be used across sectors and target groups, nor a typology of different types of entering the real-life context of people is available. On a research level, comparative research on the effectiveness of different types is hampered. On a policy level there is a dearth of tools to decide which type of ‘outreach’ supports which objective. In daily practice this gap creates confusion in use of terminology and difficulties in delineation of tasks and responsibilities.
Methods. An online survey on ‘real-life context work’ was set up in the fields of mental health, social work, nursery,  youthwork, orthopedagogics, forensic work, … in Flanders (Belgium), focusing on the objectives and characteristics of the different practices (n=902). A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to determine profiles of real-life context work.
Results. The LCA resulted in a typology of 4 classes of ‘real-life context’ work. The first class ‘outreach’ (32%) shows high scores on working in public space, casefinding, participating in the daily life of clients and realizing fundamental rights. The second class ‘family work’ (25%) is mainly characterized by working with families, home visits and a focus on the development of the child, safety in the family and broadening the clients network. The third class ‘mobile work’ (22%) is characterized by working with individuals who are mainly professional referred, making home visits and has as main objective supporting independence and quality of life. The fourth class (20%) ‘inreach’ shows high scores on working in other organizations, working with individuals, self-referral and with a focus on social reintegration, employment and (mental) health.
Conclusion. The findings of this study illustrate the existence of different profiles of ‘real-life context work’. Insight into the four distinct classes of ‘real-life context work’ will provide a base for comparative research, qualitative ‘outreach’ policy making and conceptual clarity for field workers.}},
  author       = {{Dewaele, Cis and Vanderplasschen, Wouter and De Maeyer, Jessica and Reynaert, Didier and De Witte, Nico}},
  keywords     = {{outreach,typology,real-life context work}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  location     = {{Leuven}},
  title        = {{‘Outreach’ or ‘real-life context work’? Four profiles of working in the real-life context of people.}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}