Writing
MU Covid 19 Wellness Plan & Literature Review on Self Care of Social Workers Essay

MacEwan University

Question Description

Can you help me understand this Social Science question?

-Create a wellness plan to self-care during COVID outbreak.

-Literature review about how important is self-care for social workers.



Unformatted Attachment Preview

Self-Care Practices of Self-Identified Social Workers: Findings from a National Study Jay J. Miller, Erlene Grise-Owens, Larry Owens, Nada Shalash, and Molly Bode KEY WORDS: burnout; practitioner wellness; self-care; social work practice S ocial work’s professional mission is to “enhance . . . well-being . . . of all people” (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2017[NASW], 2017, Preamble). Surely, “all people” also includes the practitioners engaged in the services of the profession. Selfcare is an integral component of social work practice that promotes well-being (Newell, 2017). The literature touting the benefits of engaging in self-care is growing. Collectively, authors have postulated that self-care can prevent, assuage, and address a host of adverse employment circumstances, including stress, vicarious trauma, and professional burnout, among others (see, for example, Cox & Steiner, 2013; Grise-Owens, Miller, & Eaves, 2016; Lee & Miller, 2013; Miller, Lianekhammy, & Grise-Owens, 2018). These benefits improve quality of services and client outcomes. This exploratory study examined the self-care practices of self-identified social workers (N = 2,934) throughout the United States. Researchers used the Self-Care Practices Scale (SCPS) (Lee, Bride, & Miller, 2016) to examine the frequency in which participants engaged in self-care practices. Ancillary foci included inspecting relationships between various demographic and professional variables and self-care. doi: 10.1093/sw/swz046 © 2019 National Association of Social Workers BACKGROUND Emerging Definitions of Self-Care Defining “self-care” can be somewhat complex (Coleman, Martensen, Scott, & Indelicato, 2016). This complexity may be attributable to several distinct, yet interconnected factors. Terms such as selfcare, self-compassion, mindfulness, individual wellness, and the like are often used interchangeably (see, for example, Cleantis, 2017). This lack of clarity related to terminology can make clearly defining self-care challenging (Coleman et al., 2016). In addition, self-care, both as a construct and as a practice, has evolved over time. The term appears to have gained prominence in the medical literature during the 1960s and 1970s. In most instances, the term was used to describe physical practices associated with addressing medical ailments. This limited conception of self-care has contributed to limited views—and, thus, applications. For example, many people view self-care practices as strictly related to physical activity, such as going to the gym (Grise-Owens, Miller, Escobar-Ratliff, et al., 2016). Several authors and entities have posited more refined understandings of self-care. NASW (2018) defined self-care as “a choice and commitment to become actively involved in maintaining ones effectiveness as a social worker” (p. 246). Pragmatically, this commitment must be actualized through 55 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/65/1/55/5675492 by MacEwan University Libraries user on 25 March 2020 Self-care can be an important tool in assuaging professional burnout, workplace stress, vicarious or secondary trauma, and other deleterious employment circumstances. Despite this importance, few studies have examined self-care among social work practitioners. This exploratory study examined the self-care practices of self-identified social workers (N = 2,934) throughout the United States. Primary data were collected with an electronic survey. Data indicate that social workers in the sample engage in moderate self-care practices. Analyses revealed group differences in self-care by several variables including geographic locale of participants’ primary place of employment, race, educational level, and social work licensing status, among others. Significant predictors of self-care included perceived health status (self-report), education level, being a supervisor, and financial status. Overall, findings from this study indicate the need for a systemic response to improving self-care practices among social workers. Research on Self-Care in Social Services There is a paucity of research examining self-care within social work (Cox & Steiner, 2013; Lee & Miller, 2013; NASW, 2008; Newell, 2017; and so on). The few studies conducted found a common theme: Social workers only moderately engage in self-care practices. In perhaps the largest self-care study of social workers to date, Bloomquist et al. (2015) sampled 786 MSWs from over 40 states, concluding that although participants viewed selfcare as pertinent to their social work practice, they only engaged in it on a “limited basis.” In examining broader wellness issues associated with social services professionals in child welfare contexts, Griffiths, Royse, and Walker (2018) suggested that self-care was low among their sample. Miller, Lianekhammy, Pope, Lee, and Grise-Owens (2017) reached similar conclusions among samples of health care and clinical social workers, respectively. With Bloomquist et al. (2015) as a notable exception, other studies examining self-care have been confined to state or regional areas. Association of Schools of Social Work’s (2004) Statement of Ethical Principles decreed that social workers have a “duty to take necessary steps to care for themselves professionally and personally in the workplace and society” (Article 5, Professional Conduct, #6). NASW (2009) proclaimed that selfcare is a “core essential component to social work practice and reflects a choice and commitment to become actively involved in maintaining one’s effectiveness as a social worker” (p. 269), and concluded that “professional self-care is an essential underpinning to best practice in the profession of social work” (p. 268). Broader literature (that is, beyond social work) documents the benefits of self-care. Much of this literature suggests that self-care can be a valuable tool in redressing inimical employment conditions. For instance, Coleman et al. (2016) asserted that lower self-care is related to higher levels of burnout and traumatic stress. Alkema, Linton, and Davies (2008) suggested that appropriate self-care practices may contribute to employment satisfaction. Self-care may also contribute to employee retention (Bressi & Vaden, 2017), among other positive impacts. In addition, self-care practices, or lack thereof, may affect practitioners’ abilities to provide adept services to clients (see, for example, Miller, Donohue-Dioh, Niu, & Shalash, 2018). CURRENT STUDY This study is exploratory in nature and sought to examine the overall self-care practices of selfidentified social workers throughout the United States. Ancillary objectives included examining relationships and group differences between personal and professional variables (including geographic variables) and overall self-care. Specifically, this study was guided by the following research questions: (a) How often do social workers engage in self-care? (b) Are there group differences in selfcare practices by demographic and professional characteristics, including workplace location? and (c) What personal and professional variables predict self-care practices? Benefits of Self-Care METHOD Few would dispute the beneficial aspects of engaging in self-care. In fact, this importance has been articulated by professional social work membership organizations. For instance, the International Federation of Social Workers and International Protocols and Sampling Procedures 56 To collect primary data for this study, researchers adapted a cross-sectional design, relying on an electronic survey. The survey was sent to various Listservs (for example, NASW chapters) and posted Social Work Volume 65, Number 1 January 2020 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/65/1/55/5675492 by MacEwan University Libraries user on 25 March 2020 attention to several domains. Lee and Miller (2013) defined two domains of self-care:personal and professional. They defined personal self-care as “a process of purposeful engagement in practices that promote holistic health and well-being of the self ” (p. 98). Concomitantly, they defined professional self-care as “the process of purposeful engagement in practices that promote effective and appropriate use of the self in the professional role within the context of sustaining holistic health and wellbeing” (p. 98). Bloomquist, Wood, Freidmeyer– Trainor, and Kim (2015) expressed a similar notion related to professional self-care.Other authors,such as Grise-Owens et al. (2016) and Newell (2017), have put forth multidimensional conceptions of self-care that include domains such as physical, physiological, and spiritual. This multidimensional aspect focused on action makes self-care different from other wellness terminology. Central to all definitions of self-care is the notion that self-care entails holistic attention to multiple domains associated with overall well-being. Measures The instrument used to collect primary data for this study contained two overarching parts: (1) demographic and professional items and (2) selfcare practice items. The following paragraphs briefly describe these measures. Demographic Measures. To characterize the sample and to answer the previously posited research queries,participants were asked to respond to a wide array of demographic variables. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, educational level, and relationship status were measured using categorical or ordinal items. Age was measured continuously. In addition, participants were asked to provide the location (that is, state) of their primary place of employment. In turn, these responses were coded into one of nine U.S. Census Divisions (see https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/ gtc_census_divreg.html). States, delineated by division, number of participants from each division, and overall self-care scores are included in Table 1. Detailed demographic and professional information for participants is included in the Results section of this article. Self-Care Practices. Participants took the SCPS (Lee et al., 2016) to measure self-care practices. SCPS is an 18-item instrument designed to measure the frequency with which the respondent engages in self-care. SCPS gathers responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = never to 4 = very often. Overall self-care scores are computed as a sum across all items, with a potential range of 0 to 72. Higher scores indicate a higher frequency of self-care practices. SCPS has been used in previous studies and has been observed to have acceptable psychometric properties. For this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .86, thus displaying high internal consistency. RESULTS A total of 2,934 participants responded to this survey. The typical participant was 39.83 years old (SD = 11.36), worked 40.04 (SD = 7.32) hours per week, and had been practicing in social work for 9.39 (SD = 9.14) years. Additional demographic and professional data are included in Table 2. Self-Care Practices As indicated, total self-care scores can range from 0 to 72, with higher scores denoting more engagement in self-care. For this sample, the mean selfcare score was 44.46 (SD = 8.24; range = 55). The mean item rating was 2.47, indicating that participants sometimes engaged in self-care practices. Relationships between Continuous Variables. Correlation analyses between the total self-care scores and continuous demographic variables produced significant relationships with age (r = 0.161, p < .001), years in social work practice (r = 0.219, p < .001), and health status (r = 0.318, p < .001). Group Differences. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, one-way analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted to investigate differences between key variables with appropriate sample sizes at each level on the dependent variable total self-care scores. For some analyses, group designations were collapsed to account for differential group sizes. These instances are noted. Also, robust nonparametric alternatives were used to account for overly disparate group sizes. For all analyses, significant findings were confirmed with both parametric and nonparametric analyses.The more conservative nonparametric results are reported, where appropriate. Analyses revealed significant group differences by the following variables: geographic locale of participants’ primary place of employment, race, highest education level, professional Miller, Grise-Owens, Owens, Shalash, and Bode / Self-Care Practices of Self-Identified Social Workers 57 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/65/1/55/5675492 by MacEwan University Libraries user on 25 March 2020 on a number of social media outlets pertaining to social work. Individuals were asked to take the survey and to consider forwarding or reposting the survey for other potential participants. Because of these procedures, calculating a response rate to the electronic survey invitation is not possible. All participants in this study self-identified as social workers. One important caveat is that not all respondents have a social work degree. Although some states do permit individuals without a social work degree to practice social work (for example, when no practice protection act is in place), this point is noteworthy. Data for this study were collected during winter and spring 2018. The survey and participant data were managed with SurveyMonkey. Respondents who took part in the study were offered a chance to enter a $500 incentive drawing for their participation. The incentive link was disconnected from primary survey by a separate online link. Thus, participant responses were anonymous. All protocols used for this study were approved by a university institutional review board. Table 1: Respondents’ Location of Practice by Geographic Division States Division 1: New England Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota Delaware,District of Columbia,Florida,Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington Division 2: Middle Atlantic Division 3: East North Central Division 4: West North Central Division 5: South Atlantic Division 6: East South Central Division 7: West South Central Division 8: Mountain Division 9: Pacific membership affiliation, social work licensing status, supervision status, work focus, relationship status, and financial situation. Total self-care practice scores, by geographic division, ranged from 46.09 (SD = 7.99) to 40.07 (SD = 8.64). Overall self-care scores, delineated by geographic region, are included in Table 1. Geographic locale of participants’ primary place of employment yielded significant findings [F(8, 2,793) = 14.40, p < .001, η2 = 0.13] (due to the homogeneity issues in the data set, a robust Brown–Forsythe test was conducted instead of the classic ANOVA procedures). A follow-up Games– Howell test indicated that respondents from the West North Central division (M = 40.07, SD = 8.64) had a significantly lower mean than respondents in five of the eight other divisions (those except for Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, and West South Central). In addition, participants in the East South Central division (M = 46.09, SD = 7.99) scored significantly higher than those from six out of the eight remaining divisions (excluding those in New England and Mountain divisions). Significant effects by race [F(1, 2,792) = 1.73, p = .009, Cohen’s d = .10] were found. The mean total self-care scores for the white non-Hispanic social workers (M = 44.65, SD = 8.21) were significantly higher than their nonwhite counterparts (M = 43.54, SD = 8.32). Several factors related to professional role and status were found. First, differences in highest academic degree [F(1, 2,792) = .18, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .32] were found in comparing social workers’ total self-care mean scores. Respondents who had 58 n Self-Care Score (SD) 61 45.10 (8.01) 279 324 101 42.83 (7.70) 44.26 (7.65) 40.07 (8.64) 332 42.55 (8.87) 1,208 183 101 46.09 (7.99) 43.21 (7.42) 44.42 (6.94) 205 43.67 (9.28) earned their highest academic degrees at the master’s level (M = 45.23, SD = 8.03) scored significantly higher on total self-care than those who had not (including associate’s, bachelor’s, doctorate, and professional degrees) (M = 42.25, SD = 8.44). Similarly, significant cross-group differences in total self-care scores were also found based on professional membership affiliation [F(1, 2,790) = .93, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .20]. Individuals who reported being a current member of a professional membership organization (M = 45.58, SD = 8.17) reported significantly higher self-care scores than nonmembers (M = 43.89, SD = 8.22). Also, analyses detected significant differences by social work licensing status [F(1, 2,792) = 8.04, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .54]. Individuals who reported currently holding a social work license (M = 45.59, SD = 8.30) scored significantly higher in terms of self-care than those who reported not currently having a license (M = 41.94, SD = 7.53). Significant differences by supervision status were also detected [F(1, 2,792) = 0.10,p< .001,Cohen’s d = 0.39]. Participants who reported supervision duties (M = 47.98, SD = 8.25) reported engaging in significantly more frequent self-care practices than did non-supervisors (M = 43.76, SD = 8.06). Significant effects were also detected by work foci. Because of the homogeneity issues in the data set, a robust Brown–Forsythe test was conducted instead of the classic ANOVA procedures and yielded significant results [F(3, 2,774) = 4.48, p = .004, η2 = 0.16]. A follow-up Games–Howell test suggested that the social workers who reported Social Work Volume 65, Number 1 January 2020 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/65/1/55/5675492 by MacEwan University Libraries user on 25 March 2020 Geographic Division Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (N = 2,934) Characteristic n % 362 2,510 62 12.3 85.5 2.1 2,428 240 129 42 13 76 82.9 8.2 4.4 1.4 0.4 2.6 1,413 384 40 292 37 762 48.3 13.1 1.4 10.0 1.3 26.0 11 753 2,073 90 5 0.4 25.7 70.7 3.1 0.2 1,502 1,158 56.5 43.5 984 1,941 33.6 66.4 350 1,042 1,186 320 29 12.0 35.6 40.5 10.9 1.0 213 1,048 1,245 415 7.3 35.9 42.6 14.2 310 1,072 941 525 54 10.6 37.0 32.5 18.1 1.9 1,925 18 991 65.6 0.6 33.8 (Continued) Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/65/1/55/5675492 by MacEwan University Libraries user on 25 March 2020 Gender Male Female Other Race and ethnic background White non-Hispanic Black non-Hispanic Hispanic, Latino, Latina Asian American Indian Other Current relationship status Married Partnered Widowed Divorced Separated Never married Highest academic degree Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate First professional degree Employer type Public (for example, governmental) Private (including private practice) Membership in professional organizations Yes No Health status Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor Current financial situation “I cannot make ends meet” “I have just enough money to make ends meet” “I have enough money, with a little left over” “I always have money left over” Total gross annual household income ($) Less than 29,999 30,000–59,999 60,000–99,999 100,000–199,999 200,000 or more Current social work license status Currently has a license Have had license in the past Never had a license Ta ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

Self Care of Social Workers

1

Individualized Wellness Plan During the COVID-19

Date

Goals and Focus

April 1-7

Utilize social
distancing to avoid
transferring and
becoming a carrier of
the disease but
-Skype someone
maintain an active
every day and look
social life.
forward to social
connection
Continue to maintain -Create a schedule
social distancing
that is not too
demanding to
Schedule 30-minute maintain
blocks of rest and
work every day,
-Stick to it to form
integrating chores
a habit!
into relaxation for
maximum efficiency
Continue to maintain -Variation is the
social distancing and spice of life.
block schedule
Practice an old skill
or try something
Vary everyday
new.
activities while
maintaining a
-Find something to
general schedule for be excited about
a regular routine that every day!
still remains
interesting

April 815

April 1623

April 2330

Continue to maintain
social distancing,
block schedule, and
variation of activity
Take some reflection
time to journal 15
minutes every day
before sleep, which
has been proven by
research to better
quality of sleep and
physical health

Steps to achieve
my goals
-Take time to reach
out to family and
friends

-Buy and create a
bullet journal

Progress check
points
Monday:
Wednesday:
Friday:
Sunday:
Monday:
Wednesday:
Friday:
Sunday:
Monday:
Wednesday:
Friday:
Sunday:

Monday:
Wednesday:

-Decorate the
journal and
incorporate it into
the daily routine
-Write down goals,
thoughts, and
feelings from the
day
-Commit to the
self-care!

Friday:
Sunday:

Notes

Self Care of Social Workers

2

Hey! Here's the lieterature review. Tell me if you need anything else. If not, please clear me for the balance. Thanks!

Summary of “Intracellular Penetration and Effects of Antibiotics on Staphylococcus aureus
Inside Human Neutrophils: A Comprehensive Review”
1. Introduction
Neutrophils are crucial to the body’s defense against bacteria as they are capable of
continuously preventing and clearing infection. They can identify bacteria at the site of infection
and can subsequently lead to the formation of phagosomes and the phagolysosome, which cause
intraluminal degradation in bacteria. Dysfunctional neutrophils exist in severely injured patients,
whose bacterial killing capacity and phagocytosis are decreased, making them more vulnerable
to infection. They impact factors such as morbidity, hospital stay length, and extent of functional
recovery. The causative pathogen Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) grows inside host cell
neutrophils. Although prophylactic antibiotics are often used for severely injured patients, most
administered antibiotics cannot target S. aureus. Thus, this study reviews the ability of common
antibiotics to enter neutrophils, their effect on S. aureus, and their effect on neutrophil functions.
2. Results
2.1. Protein Synthesis Inhibitors
Aminoglycosides penetrate poorly. At clinically relevant concentrations, they do not have an
effect on neutrophils’ intrinsic killing capacity but inhibit functions at high doses. At clinically
relevant extracellul...

University of Virginia

Anonymous
I was on a very tight deadline but thanks to Studypool I was able to deliver my assignment on time.

Anonymous
The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

Anonymous
I did not know how to approach this question, Studypool helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags