Cited by 12Health Policy Implementation ScienceChild Welfare and AdoptionSocial Work Education and Practice

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Attachment‐based Family Therapy into a Child Welfare Setting: A Qualitative Process Evaluation

Open access
Santens, Tara, Hannes, Karin, Levy, Suzanne, Diamond, Guy, Bosmans, Guy·2020·Family Process

Abstract

Child welfare systems (CWS s) worldwide show increased interest in adopting empirically informed clinical strategies to increase treatment effectiveness. Many empirically supported treatments (EST s) exist, but little is known about EST implementation barriers and facilitators in CWS. This study explored CWS providers’ experiences of implementing attachment‐based family therapy (ABFT) in home‐based services of the Flemish CWS (in Belgium). Sixteen CWS providers (twelve counselors and four supervisors) involved in three home‐based services were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide collection, coding, and analysis of interview data. Findings revealed that implementation success was related to ABFT's fit with the CWS's mission, philosophy, and existing practices. CWS providers’ belief in the compatibility between ABFT and CWS increased investment in implementation efforts and persistence to overcome challenges and setbacks. Some barriers pertained to the learning of ABFT and some barriers pertained to systems level challenges such as lack of leadership and support, poor coordination with referral sources and other youth care partners, and lack of policy support. For successful expansion of EST s into CWS settings, various barriers at multiple systemic levels need to be addressed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/famp.12504

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Santens, T., Hannes, K., Levy, S., Diamond, G., & Bosmans, G.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Drexel University (US)
Corresponding author
Santens, Tara
Venue
Family Process
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-12-10
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
1483-1497
ISSN
  • 0014-7370 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-5300
OpenAlex
W2996264372
Cited by
12
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Family Process (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
Keywords
attachment-based family therapy, child welfare, implementation barriers and facilitators, empirically supported treatments, home-based services, child and youth care, provider experiences, organizational fit, referral coordination, policy support, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
MeSH terms
Belgium, Child, Child Welfare, Family Therapy, Female, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Male, Object Attachment, Systems Analysis, Process Assessment, Health Care, Qualitative Research

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