“You just can’t do that in dementia care”: Barriers to partnership working within dementia services for people from south Asian communities

Dementia Pub Date : 2024-09-15 DOI:10.1177/14713012241283189
R Cheston, E Dodd, P Smith, NS Woodstoke, K Jutlla, G Fry, D Truswell, J Butt, S Parveen
{"title":"“You just can’t do that in dementia care”: Barriers to partnership working within dementia services for people from south Asian communities","authors":"R Cheston, E Dodd, P Smith, NS Woodstoke, K Jutlla, G Fry, D Truswell, J Butt, S Parveen","doi":"10.1177/14713012241283189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: People from South Asian communities are under-represented at all levels of dementia services. Consequently, there is pressure for the statutory sector to deliver services in partnership with Voluntary, Community, Faith and Social Enterprises (VCFSEs). This study set out to explore the constraints to effective partnership working which prevent dementia care from being delivered in an equitable way.Methods: Data collection consisted of two phases. First, we interviewed seven people with experience of partnership working and developed three fictional vignettes that were representative of the challenges they faced. We then used these vignettes to stimulate discussion in focus groups and interviews with 13 VCFSE and 16 statutory sector participants. Data was analysed using deductive thematic analysis.Findings: Three themes were developed during the analysis. First, White British-centric services focused on the challenges for statutory services in meeting the needs of South Asians, developing flexible, responsive services and making inclusive partnership working truly meaningful. Second, VCFSE participants (but not statutory service participants) associated a failure to deliver effective partnership working with unconscious bias operating within systems, leading to the devaluing of their expertise and to their views being ignored. Finally, participants emphasised the need to prioritise relationships if they were to meet the challenges of developing partnership working.Conclusion: We identified three constraints acting to prevent effective partnership working. First, the different meanings that statutory and VCFSE participants attach to challenges threatens their ability to develop a shared understanding of the needs of communities. Second, a reluctance to explicitly address service deficiencies can mean that stereotypes remain unaddressed. Finally, while both parties lacked power to change the fundamentals of service delivery, power and resources were also unbalanced with VCSFE services being more reliant on the statutory sector.","PeriodicalId":517400,"journal":{"name":"Dementia","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012241283189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: People from South Asian communities are under-represented at all levels of dementia services. Consequently, there is pressure for the statutory sector to deliver services in partnership with Voluntary, Community, Faith and Social Enterprises (VCFSEs). This study set out to explore the constraints to effective partnership working which prevent dementia care from being delivered in an equitable way.Methods: Data collection consisted of two phases. First, we interviewed seven people with experience of partnership working and developed three fictional vignettes that were representative of the challenges they faced. We then used these vignettes to stimulate discussion in focus groups and interviews with 13 VCFSE and 16 statutory sector participants. Data was analysed using deductive thematic analysis.Findings: Three themes were developed during the analysis. First, White British-centric services focused on the challenges for statutory services in meeting the needs of South Asians, developing flexible, responsive services and making inclusive partnership working truly meaningful. Second, VCFSE participants (but not statutory service participants) associated a failure to deliver effective partnership working with unconscious bias operating within systems, leading to the devaluing of their expertise and to their views being ignored. Finally, participants emphasised the need to prioritise relationships if they were to meet the challenges of developing partnership working.Conclusion: We identified three constraints acting to prevent effective partnership working. First, the different meanings that statutory and VCFSE participants attach to challenges threatens their ability to develop a shared understanding of the needs of communities. Second, a reluctance to explicitly address service deficiencies can mean that stereotypes remain unaddressed. Finally, while both parties lacked power to change the fundamentals of service delivery, power and resources were also unbalanced with VCSFE services being more reliant on the statutory sector.
"在痴呆症护理中不能这样做":南亚社区痴呆症患者在痴呆症服务中的合作障碍
背景:南亚社区居民在各级痴呆症服务机构中的代表性不足。因此,法定部门面临着与志愿、社区、信仰和社会企业(VCFSEs)合作提供服务的压力。本研究旨在探讨有效合作的制约因素,这些因素阻碍了以公平的方式提供痴呆症护理服务:数据收集分为两个阶段。首先,我们采访了七位有合作经验的人士,并虚构了三个能代表他们所面临挑战的小故事。然后,我们利用这些小故事来激发焦点小组和访谈中的讨论,这些焦点小组和访谈对象包括 13 名 VCFSE 和 16 名法定部门的参与者。我们采用演绎主题分析法对数据进行了分析:分析过程中形成了三个主题。首先,以英国白人为中心的服务机构重点关注了法定服务机构在满足南亚人需求、发展灵活、反应迅速的服务以及使包容性伙伴关系工作真正具有意义方面所面临的挑战。其次,VCFSE 的参与者(而不是法定服务机构的参与者)将未能开展有效的合作关系工作与系统内存在的无意识偏见联系起来,这导致他们的专业知识被贬低,他们的意见被忽视。最后,参与者强调,如果要应对发展合作关系的挑战,就必须优先考虑人际关系:我们发现了阻碍有效开展合作的三个制约因素。首先,法定机构和创业、家庭和社会服务机构的参与者对挑战的理解不同,这威胁到他们对社区需求形成共识的能力。其次,不愿意明确解决服务缺陷可能意味着陈规定型观念仍未得到解决。最后,虽然双方都没有权力改变服务提供的基本要素,但权力和资源也不平衡,弱势群体和家庭福利服务机构更依赖于法定部门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书