Cited by 17Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsStress and Burnout ResearchSocial Work Education and Practice

Mindfulness-Based Social Work and Self-Care with Social Work Professionals: Replication and Expansion of a Randomised Controlled Trial

Open access
Maddock, Alan, McGuigan, Karen, McCusker, Pearse·2024·The British Journal of Social Work

Abstract

Social workers are at high risk of work stress and burnout, with the Covid-19 reported to have amplified this risk. The Mindfulness-based Social Work and Self-Care programme (MBSWSC) has been found to support cognitive and emotion regulation of social workers, leading to improved stress, burnout, mental health, and well-being. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to replicate and expand the findings of an earlier RCT of MBSWSC, with a wider group of social work professionals (including managers), by evaluating the effects of MBSWSC (n = 29) versus an active control (n = 31). Replication of RCTs acts as an important means by which findings can be confirmed, results replicated, generalisability assessed and processes and applicability improved. When compared to an online active control group, MBSWSC (which was also delivered online) was found to improve stress, emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation of service users, anxiety, depression, well-being, along with a range of mindfulness mechanisms of action which support cognitive and emotion self-regulation. The results from this study evidence the acceptability, effectiveness and durability of MBSWSC, and provide clear guidance that if MBSWSC is implemented across social work services, social workers are likely to experience improvements in these critical social work practice and self-care outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bjsw/bcae011

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SCS reliability was acceptable in both prior RCTs (α=0.87 and 0.86).

    “The reliability of the scores on the SCS was found to be acceptable in both Maddock et al. (2023) and Maddock et al. (2024) (Cronbach’s α = 0.87, and 0.86).”

    From Testing Mindfulness Mechanisms of Action on the Stress and Burnout of Social Workers (2024) · cites this paper as Maddock et al., 2024

    The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form section (page unavailable) reports acceptable reliability, but gives Cronbach’s α = 0.81 for the 2024 sample, not 0.86. The paper assigns 0.86 to the Perceived Stress Scale and 0.87 to the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire; its text does not establish the SCS coefficient for the separate 2023 study. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • EQ-D reliability in both RCTs with social workers was acceptable (α=0.84 and 0.84).

    “The reliability of the scores on the EQ-D in both RCTs with social workers was deemed to be acceptable (Cronbach’s α = 0.84) (Maddock et al., 2023), and (Cronbach’s α = 0.84) (Maddock et al., 2024).”

    From Testing Mindfulness Mechanisms of Action on the Stress and Burnout of Social Workers (2024) · cites this paper as Maddock et al., 2024

    The Experiences Questionnaire-Decentering section reports acceptable EQ-D reliability in the 2024 trial, but gives Cronbach’s α as 0.90, not the attributed 0.84. The 2023 trial is cited separately and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PSWQ reliability was high in both prior RCTs (α=0.95 and 0.94).

    “The reliability of the scores on the PSWQ in in both Maddock et al. (2023) and Maddock et al. (2024) was found to be high (Cronbach’s α = 0.95, and 0.94).”

    From Testing Mindfulness Mechanisms of Action on the Stress and Burnout of Social Workers (2024) · cites this paper as Maddock et al., 2024

    The Penn State Worry Questionnaire section (page not provided) reports Cronbach’s α = 0.73 for the PSWQ in the 2024 study and describes its reliability as acceptable, not high at 0.94. This verdict concerns the value attributed to Maddock et al. (2024); the cited paper does not establish the separate value attributed to the 2023 study. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SMQ-LG had acceptable Cronbach's alpha of 0.76 and 0.74; SMQ-AV had good to acceptable Cronbach's α of 0.82 and 0.60.

    “Maddock et al. (2023) and Maddock et al. (2024) reported acceptable Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76 and 0.74 for the SMQ-LG, and good to acceptable Cronbach’s α of 0.82 and 0.60 for the SMQ-AV, respectively.”

    From Testing Mindfulness Mechanisms of Action on the Stress and Burnout of Social Workers (2024) · cites this paper as Maddock et al., 2024

    The Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire section (page unavailable) reports four subscales but no SMQ-LG subscale. It gives Cronbach’s alpha for SMQ-Av as 0.70, contrary to the 0.60 attributed to the 2024 paper; it does not report 0.74 for SMQ-LG. The values assigned to the 2023 paper are outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The reliability of PSS scores in both RCTs with social workers was acceptable (α=0.88 and 0.87).

    “The reliability of the scores on the PSS in both RCTs with social workers was deemed to be acceptable (Cronbach’s α = 0.88) (Maddock et al., 2023), and (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) (Maddock et al., 2024).”

    From Testing Mindfulness Mechanisms of Action on the Stress and Burnout of Social Workers (2024) · cites this paper as Maddock et al., 2024

    The Perceived Stress Scale section says PSS score reliability in the 2024 sample was acceptable, but reports Cronbach’s α = 0.86, not 0.87. The α = 0.88 value in this paper belongs to the Philadelphia Mindfulness-Acceptance Subscale. The separately cited 2023 RCT is not being judged here. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

18 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. and Leiter, M. (1996) Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, 3rd edn, Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press.
  2. Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. and Teasdale, J. D. (2002) Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression: A New Approach to Preventing Relapse, New York, NY, Guilford Press.
  3. Startup, H. M. and Erickson, T. M. (2006) 'The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ)', in Davey, G. C. L. and Wells, A. (eds), Worry and Its Psychological Disorders: Theory, Assessment and Treatment, pp.101-19, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maddock, A., McGuigan, K., & McCusker, P.
Affiliations
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (IE)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Maddock, Alan
Venue
The British Journal of Social Work
Published
2024-02-12
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
1319-1339
ISSN
  • 0045-3102 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-263X
OpenAlex
W4391755671
Cited by
17
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6
FWCI
8.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Social Work (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Office of Social Services
  • Department of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, social workers, self-care, burnout, occupational stress, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, anxiety, depression, well-being, cognitive self-regulation, emotion regulation, online intervention, replication, COVID-19 pandemic, social work managers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review