Cited by 4Social Work Education and PracticeCounseling Practices and SupervisionSocial Sciences and Policies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Development of Dual and Multiple Relationships for Social Workers in Rural Communities

Open access
Piché, Tammy, Brownlee, Keith, Halverson, Glenn·2015·Contemporary Rural Social Work Journal

Abstract

Mental health professionals who work in small, rural communities often have to contend with dual and multiple relationships. The more integrated service providers are within the community, the more likely they will encounter overlapping personal and professional relationships with clients. Although there is extensive literature on the potential risks of dual and multiple relationships, little empirical evidence exists which addresses the contextual factors that specifically lead to these relationships in rural social work practice. This qualitative study explored the experiences of twelve social workers or social service workers practicing in northern and northwestern Ontario. Findings provide some insight into the complexity and dynamics of dual and multiple relationships in small towns, as well as worker perspectives on the specific contextual circumstances that result in mental health workers encountering these relationships. The unique contribution of this paper to the literature is to highlight factors that increase the likelihood of dual and multiple relationships when they are not as obvious as a clear and immediate conflict of interest. Greater clarity about such precipitating factors will contribute to supervision, training, and sound policy development informed by contextual sensitivity.

Overview

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 · 10.61611/2165-4611.1083

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Metadata

Authors
Piché, T., Brownlee, K., & Halverson, G.
Affiliations
  • Lakehead University (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Venue
Contemporary Rural Social Work Journal
Published
2015-09-01
Volume
7
Issue
2
ISSN
2165-4611 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1826361587
Cited by
4
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Contemporary Rural Social Work Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Murray State's Digital Commons (Murray State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Sciences and Policies
Keywords
dual relationships, multiple relationships, rural social work, social workers, small towns, rural mental health services, professional boundaries, conflicts of interest, worker perspectives, training and supervision, Northern Ontario

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