IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v22y2013i1-2p240-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting the case for ‘progressive universalism’ in health visiting: Scottish mothers and health visitors’ perspectives on targeting and rationing health visiting services, with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model

Author

Listed:
  • Rhona Hogg
  • Catriona Kennedy
  • Carol Gray
  • Janet Hanley

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To explore parents and professionals’ experience of family assessment in health visiting (public health nursing), with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model. Background. Health visitors currently assess families as requiring core, additional or intensive support, and offer support at a corresponding level. The majority of families are assessed as core and receive no pro‐active support beyond the early days. Previous assessment tools, consisting of checklists, have been criticised as being ineffective in identifying a range of health needs and unacceptable to parents and health visitors. The Lothian Child Concern Model was developed and introduced in the study area to promote a partnership approach with parents and assess strengths as well as difficulties in parents’ capacity to care for their child. Methods. Qualitative methods were used. Ten mothers and 12 health visitors took part in individual semi‐structured interviews. Results. Most mothers were aware of the assessment process but some felt that they were not involved in the decision‐making process. Explaining the assessment process to parents is problematic and not all health visitors do so. The assessment process was stressful for some mothers. Health visitors find the model useful for structuring and documenting the assessment process. Many believe that most families benefit from some support, using public health approaches. Health visitors said that families are often assessed as core because there are insufficient resources to support all those who meet the criteria of the additional category and that managers assess caseloads in terms of families with child protection concerns. Conclusions. The study findings significant the concept of ‘progressive universalism’ that provides a continuum that intensity of support to families, depending on need. Mothers would like better partnership working with health visitors. Relevance to clinical practice. The study endorses proposed policy changes to re‐establish the public health role of health visitors and to lower the threshold for families to qualify for support.

Suggested Citation

  • Rhona Hogg & Catriona Kennedy & Carol Gray & Janet Hanley, 2013. "Supporting the case for ‘progressive universalism’ in health visiting: Scottish mothers and health visitors’ perspectives on targeting and rationing health visiting services, with a focus on the Lothi," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1-2), pages 240-250, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:1-2:p:240-250
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04224.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04224.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04224.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:1-2:p:240-250. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.