‘MyPower’: An app to improve communication between children’s social workers and families – acceptability evaluation study

Authors: Josh Behan-Devlin, Dr Dharman Jeyasingham, Dr Helen Hawley-Hague Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester Table of Contents

Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 The intervention

2. Methodology

2.1 Focus groups

2.2 Think aloud interviews

2.3 Data analysis

2.4 Ethics

3. Findings

3.1 Current practices

3.1.1 Sharing plans

3.1.2 Communication about plans

3.2 Affective attitude towards the app

3.2.1 Use of digital technology for relational work

3.3 Usability: app design, colour and language

3.4 Perceived effectiveness Accessibility

3.5 Time burden

3.6 Accountability through the app

3.7 Ownership of goals

3.8 Safety

4. Discussion

5. Recommendations

5.1 Integration with existing systems

5.2 Safety

5.3 Implementation

References

1. Introduction

MyPower is an app designed for use in children’s social work practice, developed by Coco- Operative, a Community Interest Company founded by Cordula Gwilym and Lyndsey Lynch. The authors of this report, all based at the University of Manchester, were approached by Coco-Operative to undertake a piece of qualitative research with would-be end-users of the app to seek their views. The app prototype is currently at an early prototype stage of development, meaning the app has some functionality for demonstration purposes but does not collect or store any data. The app prototpye development was funded by The Alex Timpson Trust and Zing. The technical development of the current prototype was undertaken by FocusGov. The funding to undertake focus groups and think aloud interviews, reported on in this report, was provided by the UKRI Partcipatory Research Fund. Regarding roles within this evaluation, Josh Behan-Devlin undertook data collection and analysis and led on the writing of this report. Dr Dharman Jeyasingham and Dr Helen Hawley-Hague supported in the analysis and report writing. All three authors jointly designed the research project.

1.1 Background

The underlying need for the app comes from a recognition, from across the sector, of set of interlinking problems within children’s social care. These problems have been most recently articulated in The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care (MacAlister, 2022). Firstly, children’s social care, and by extension children’s social workers, often struggle to effectively engage parents in social work planning. There is a widespread lack of preventative services meaning interventions are often implemented at a late stage, in reaction to risks, rather than seeking to prevent them (Bywaters et al, 2020). As a result, strengths within families and communities can often fall into the background of practice interventions, whilst a focus on risk management is foregrounded. The second set of problems centres around social workers spending too much time on bureaucratic processes, such as case recording, at the expense of time with families (Revalier et al, 2023). BASW (2018) have estimated that only 20% of social workers’ time is spent with children and families. These two sets of problems are inter-linked: social workers are limited in the amount of time they can spend with families due to bureaucracy, which limits their capacities to build relationships and engage in collaborative behaviour- change work. This is within a backdrop of increasing referrals to children’s social care services in terms of volume and complexity (Institute for Government, 2023), and increased burn-out of children’s social workers (Revalier et al, 2023). MyPower was developed out of a recognition of these problems, and the view that there is an opportunity for more creative uses of technology to enable better collaboration between social workers and families on the one hand, whilst reducing bureaucracy on the other. The development of the background idea for MyPower has been based on principles of co-production. Prior to the University of Manchester becoming involved in the project, Coco-Operative ran a series of workshops and one-to-one meetings with user groups and other stakeholders, such as parents, social workers, senior leaders and policy-makers, to develop and refine the underpinning functions and design of the app.

1.2 The intervention

The primary functions of the app are to structure case planning and facilitate communication related to updates to case plans between social workers, families, and multi-agency professionals. The aims of the app are twofold. Firstly, to facilitate effective behaviour change through families having ownership and direct input into their social work plans. This is done through social work plans being housed within the app. Families have access to these and can provide and request updates about their plans in their own time. The app also provides a tool to stimulate collaborative case planning, through a set of goal- setting questions, intended to be completed in collaboration between social workers and families. The app is also intended to be engaging and fun to use, through the use of colour and interactive graphics. The app’s second aim is to reduce the amount of time social workers are required to spend updating case records related to plans. This to be achieved by plan updates being recorded directly into the app by families and other professionals, reducing the onus on the social worker to request and record plan updates. This contrasts with current practices whereby social workers are primarily responsible for gathering and recording updates from families and other professionals. The underlying theory is that if families have more immediate access to their social work plans, can update and seek updates themselves, and can clearly visualise their progress, then they will be more motivated to undertake changes. This aligns with evidence from behaviour change researchers that setting personal goals can be an effective behaviour change technique (Epton et al 2017), through fostering intrinsic feelings of competence and autonomy.

2. Methodology

The research questions investigated through focus groups and ‘think aloud’ interviews were: Is ‘MyPower’, an app to improve collaborative communication between social workers and families, acceptable for use by practitioners and families? How can the design of ‘MyPower’ be improved following consultation with user groups?

2.1 Focus groups

We conducted three focus groups, each with a different set of end users, using purposive, convenience sampling. Namely, parents who have or have had a children’s social worker (respective groups of fathers and mothers) and social workers. We recruited existing groups to undertake the research. Both sets of parents’ focus groups attended a regular support and advocacy service for parents. The social worker focus group participants were members of an existing team of children’s safeguarding social workers, who were recruited through the first author’s existing professional contacts in their Local Authority. We recruited established groups as this was a reliable way to recruit a group of end users within the time constraints of the project. Recruiting established groups presented some limitations however, in that they were representative of members of the organisation they belonged to, rather than that user group more widely. For example, the views of social workers reflected aspects of the organisation they worked within. Focus groups were undertaken by the first author (JD) with support from CG and LL (Coco- operative) who undertook the app demonstration. For the parents’ groups, the group coordinator was present. At times, they supported parents to share their views and experiences, for example by asking follow-up questions based on their knowledge of individual parent’s circumstances. A topic schedule, structured around the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (Sekhon et al, 2022), was used for the focus group and ‘Think Aloud’ interviews. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability is used in health and social care technology research as a way of investigating whether end-users will view an intervention as appropriate to achieve its goals in a particular setting. It considers different domains such as how users feel about using the app (referred to as affective attitude), perceived burden of use and whether users perceive it will be effective (referred to as perceived effectiveness). In order for an intervention to be successful, then users should deem it to have high levels of acceptability. Introductory questions were also asked to ascertain current experiences regarding receiving and sharing of plans and routine communication between social workers and parents.

2.2 Think aloud interviews

Six ‘think aloud’ interviews were conducted with three participants each from the fathers’ and practitioners’ focus groups. These involved the participant completing the ‘goal setting’ function of the app, whilst expressing their views on the look and feel of the app. Prompting questions were asked where needed. Three ‘think aloud’ interviews were conducted with the mother’s groups but unfortunately the audio recording was distorted and could not be used.

2.3 Data analysis

Data was audio recorded and transcribed by JD. It was imported into NVivo and analysed using the framework method. The analytical framework was generated using the original research questions and topic guide, which was underpinned by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (Sekhon. 2022). Data from parents’ focus groups and practitioners’ focus groups was coded separately owing to their likely different experiences and role in the children’s social care context. Data from focus groups and ‘think aloud’ interviews was analysed together.

2.4 Ethics

Ethical approval to undertake focus groups and ‘think aloud’ interviews was granted by the University of Manchester Research Ethics Committee (REF: Ref: 2023-15946-28537)

3. Findings

3.1 Current practices

Each focus group opened with two baseline questions where participants were asked about current practices regarding plans, such as how they are shared with families and how updates are communicated between meetings. Each participant was asked this question in turn, to capture the breadth of experiences and give everyone an opportunity to speak early on in the focus group.

3.1.1 Sharing plans

All of the parents except for one reported that they were not provided with plans consistently. Plans tended to be provided in paper format for meetings that had external oversight from an Independent Reviewing Officer, such as Child Protection Conferences and Looked After Reviews. Parents reported receiving plans either too soon before a meeting or too long after them: ‘So I got my paperwork, the morning of my child protection conference … I’m dyslexic, there’s no way I would have been able to go through that on my own and know what was going on.’ (P8, mother’s group)

‘You usually don’t get them until later though … Well, I’m not gonna lie when I get them through the post, like six months on, I’m not reading that, my life’s moved on since then.’ (P6, mother’s group)

There were a mix of experiences when it came to practitioners supporting parents to make sense of plans. Some parents reported having help to do this: ‘P23: I don’t speak to my social worker much now. When I did it was alright, she worked with me, printed plans off. Group facilitator: did you understand what was said? P23: she would explain it to me.’ (P23, father’s group)

Others however had the opposite experience: ‘Group facilitator: is that clear to you, P22, that when there is a plan, the social worker gets the plan and goes through each step of the plan? P22: No, that never happens.’ (P22, father’s group)

Overall, there was evidence from the parents’ focus groups that plans were not shared and explained to them consistently. Practitioners reported that they updated plans every four weeks between core group meetings. They reported that due to the volume of recording they were required to do, sometimes this was not achieved every four weeks. Plans themselves were seen as ‘messy’ (SW2) and could have ‘lots of actions on them that can be overwhelming [for parents]’ (SW3), resulting in practitioners needing to spend time reworking them. There was not an agreed process for moving actions on once they had been completed. Social workers wanted to streamline plans once completed but also wanted families’ progress to be clear. Social workers displayed completed actions in green text, or in bold. Practitioners did not generally share plans with parents in between four-weekly meetings. Parents would ‘often tell us they don’t want paper plans’ (SW1), so plans tended to be shared only where a specific request was made for it. There was also a concern that plans were sensitive documents, and that they may get lost or would not be kept securely, resulting in children or teenagers seeing them. There was a recognition that some parents benefitted from having goals and actions in writing. Practitioners reported writing down or texting a specific goal or action, sometimes breaking this down into smaller tasks than that which was displayed on the plan.

3.1.2 Communication about plans

Both practitioner and parent focus groups reported that communication regarding plans took place via a combination of home visits, meetings (taking place either virtually or in- person), email, text and phone calls. Some parents stated that they had difficulties when it came to using digital technology: ‘I didn’t use email [to communicate with my social worker]. I am illiterate when it comes to technology. So with me, it was more face to face, or I’d ring her. I have done some teams meetings online as well, but I am useless.’ (P3, mother’s group)

Others valued using digital technology because it provided a record of what was said: ‘My preferred communication with my social worker when I had one was via emails, ‘cause you’ve always got a paper chase [paper trail] of everything she’s said, ‘cause she wasn’t very good … I refused to speak to her via the phone because there’s no proof of it.’ (P4, mother’s group)

Practitioners reported that they mainly used visits between meetings as way to communicate about progress on plans: ‘I’ll have a list of things to check for each visit, ahead of the meeting the following week.’ (SW4) Practitioners also used mobile phone calls and text for short prompts to undertake specific actions: ‘I will text [parents], for example if there’s an action to see the GP, then I’ll text to prompt to see if they’ve done it.’ (SW2) In summary, parents reported not consistently receiving plans in a timely way from their social workers. Practitioners, on the other hand, reported that plans were not always shared, owing to the fact they are unwieldy documents that were difficult for parents to understand.

3.2 Affective attitude towards the app

The next section summarises participants’ affective attitude about the app. Affective attitude involves how people feel about an app or intervention, for example, what their anticipated emotional response when thinking about using it. Some of these themes overlap with another domain of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, ethicality, which is concerned with would-be users’ values in relation to the intervention (Sekhon et al, 2022).

3.2.1 Use of digital technology for relational work

Both parents and practitioners expressed a range of views regarding the suitability of digital technology for the kinds of relational work involved in social work practice with families. Such work requires social workers, parents and young people to communicate openly about sensitive and challenging topics. On the one hand, there was a view that technology might get in the way of relational and emotionally attuned communication, whilst others suggested it provided a valuable outlet of communication in addition to meetings and visits. Parents in the father’s group were unsure whether children would feel comfortable sharing personal information in the app. They suggested that children are often reluctant to share if they are having difficulties, and that the app would not change this: ‘Lots of kids won’t tell you how they’re feeling, a lot of them are introverted. They won’t write down on an app how they’re feeling, if they’re being bullied. They’re gonna keep it inside and try to hide it from you. You’d rather have that face–to-face interaction, so you can read the body language, read the face and stuff. On an app, you don’t know me, I don’t know you.’ (P22, father’s group)

Implicit in this view is that social worker’s capacities for non-verbal communication when working with clients is important, and that this might not be facilitated through the app. There was therefore a clear view shared that the app could not replace in-person interactions between social workers and families. Others in the father’s group were more positive about the role the app could play as an addition to face-to-face interactions: ‘Yes, you still need the face to face, but at the end of the day, the social worker can see, “oh let’s just have a look how the kids are doing … oh, you’re doing well Mathew [child’s pseudonym]”. They could send a quick message, “well done Mathew [child’s pseudonym], keep it up’. (P21, father’s group)

This view echoes research on the use of digitally mediated communications in children’s social work, where technology has the potential to facilitate connectedness through a ‘little and often’ approach to communication in between social work visits (Simpson, 2017). Parents in the mother’s group did not hold the same reservations about children communicating openly through the app. Some shared concerns that when young people shared their views openly, this could lead to repercussions in their relationships with parents or other family members. This is considered in more detail under the theme of ‘safety’ below. Parents echoed the need for social workers to establish a relationship and get to know clients before using the app, but also suggested that the use of the app during in-person visits could serve as a good icebreaker or prompt to get to explore parents’ views and needs: ‘Because [usually], you’ve got your back up. When they knock on your door and are like “I’m your social worker, I have to get involved in your family”, you’re very defensive sort of thing. It would be a nice ice breaker I think.’ (P7, mother’s group)

Practitioners’ views were also on a spectrum about how they envisaged integrating using the app into their usual practice for interacting with families. Practitioners did not currently use digital devices such as smartphones or laptops during home visits and one-to-one sessions with children and young people. ‘You’d have to get your laptop out with them wouldn’t you, to go through it, which normally is something I don’t really like to do. I think it’s a bit impersonal. But I suppose if you’re working towards a goal on it, and you’ve got like pictures and prompts and stuff like that, it might be a bit of a different experience, rather than just sitting and typing a case note. It’s collaborative isn’t it, so it might be a different experience.’ (SW2, practitioner group) Working with young people specifically, there was a view that using technology during direct work may be challenging, if social workers spent time with young people in different environments, such as going to get food or going for a drive, then this may not be conducive to using a device simultaneously: ‘It’s really hard with the environment, because I usually see kids, ‘cause I’ve got a lot of teenagers, I take them to Costa Coffee or something like that, and I don’t know, it’s hard, or you know, just go for a walk round the block. You wanna try see them in different environments, they don’t like the direct way of sharing.’ (SW4, practitioner group)

Conversely, young people’s dislike for sharing their views in a direct way was picked up on as a reason for their use of the app, where they could share their views in their own time: ‘This might be something actually, where they can write, if they’re awake at 11 o’clock at night, “this is the reason why tomorrow I do not want to go to school”’ (SW3, practitioner group)

The app was therefore seen as an additional tool that could be offered to families, rather than the default way of communicating. Reflected in both parents’ and practitioners’ accounts shared in the focus groups is the importance of integrating the app into existing relationship-building activities, rather than replacing them. Whilst the app is not designed to replace in-person interactions between social workers and clients, it remains that there were a range of views as to whether digital technology could effectively complement existing strategies for building and maintaining effective relationships. Trust A central finding from both parents’ focus groups was that whether they used the app would depend heavily on having a trusting relationship with their social worker. Parents in both of the groups shared their experiences of occasions when their social worker eroded their trust, or where they struggled to establish an effective working relationship. There was an overall concern that the app had the potential to be used in bad faith by practitioners, for example by misconstruing or decontextualising information recorded by families in the app: ‘I know personally … before, I wouldn’t have put anything on that, I wouldn’t let me kid go on it. What if they’re [the child] having a bad day and they say I’m feeling anxious today, and the next minute, it’s in this report, you know “child’s feeling anxious, they’re not looking after their kids” … every parent will have that when they’re working with the social when you introduce this because there’s a real lack of trust’. (P6, mother’s group)

The possibility that the app could improve relationships between families and social workers was also expressed, however there remained concerns about the need for external oversight of how the app is used: ‘JD: Is there any scope, do you think, that the app could help the relationship [between parents and social workers?] P6: Used correctly, it could be phenomenal. P4: Used correctly, it could be amazing. P7 But who’s going to regulate the app, who’s going go through it? P4: Yeah, who’s going to monitor it and make sure it’s being used correctly?’ (Mother’s group)

As part of this discussion, the pressures that social workers and managers are under was recognised, though parents were concerned that these pressures may result in a lack of oversight or proper use of the app. Some suggested the app could be used as a way to cut corners. Practitioners also shared concerns about the improper use of the app, specifically that parents could update actions in the app to show them making more progress towards goals than was true. Social workers therefore agreed that it was important that they had overall oversight and control over the app: ‘How would we as workers actually be able to kept track of what’s happened? Would they kind of, go in and update, and then it comes to us to kind of, agree that so we can at least see before anything’s changed. Cos otherwise if family is let loose on changes then they’d be like, all done, complete, authorised, jog on now.’ (SW1, practitioner’s group)

There was a concern within this, that providing oversight of updates to the app would present a time burden to social workers, which in turn could result in the app creating more work than it saves elsewhere. This considered in more detail under the heading ‘time burden’.

3.3 Usability: app design, colour and language

Keeping the volume of information displayed on each page to a minimum was seen to be important by both the parents and practitioner groups. If too much information, particularly text, was displayed on a page, then participants shared that this would be overwhelming and would dissuade participants from using it: ‘JD: When you are clicking through it, does it seem easy?

SW4: Yeah, it seems simple, it needs to stay simple and not have too much information on the interface. When it’s too much, I’m like “nooooo…”’ (Practitioner’s group think aloud interview)

Similarly, the amount of questions that require a response from users affected their perception as to how much time the app would take to use. This too, was seen to be a potential facilitator or barrier to participants updating the app in between busy day-to-day routines: ‘JD: What do you think about the amount of words and text on there?

P22: It could be a bit daunting for someone if you’re under confident. Also, a bit time consuming … And also at night [after the kids are in bed], that’s when I’d be doing it: if there’s all this [text], you’d think “ah, can’t be arsed with this”. Keeping it simple with less questions [is important].’ (Father’s group think aloud interview) \Some parents thought the design of the app, at present, was dull and needed to be more engaging. They suggested parents ‘would deal with it’ but children would switch off (father’s focus group). One suggestion was to allow customisation within the app, so that children of different ages could add age appropriate colours or graphics, whilst adults could have muted colours if they wished.

3.4 Perceived effectiveness

Effectiveness concerns whether stakeholder groups perceive that the app will be effective in achieving its aims of reducing bureaucracy and facilitating effective behavioural change. The themes within this section overlap with affective attitudes, though they relate to more concrete factors influencing whether they think the app would be effective, rather than their anticipated feelings about using the app.

3.5 Accessibility

Both parent and practitioner groups raised concerns regarding how accessible the app would be to parents with different learning and communication needs. Parents felt that the app in its current format was reliant on text, and that this would be a barrier for some parents in the group to use it. This was seen to pose a challenge both in terms of needing to read and understand a large volume of text, as well as record updates by writing them in text boxes. ‘It’s got to be easy. You know with me, I’m not good at getting it from there to there [pointing from head to phone], so reading something, I’m like “hang on a minute…”’ (P22, father’s group)

Some members of the parents’ groups shared that they experienced traits of neurodiversity. For these participants, the difficulties arising from textual communication were due to difficulties in accurately interpreting the intended meaning of words: ‘The only thing I would struggle with in the app is written communication, I absolutely hate it, I take everything the wrong way.’ (P8, mother’s group)

Others in the group highlighted that being able to share updates using other kinds of media, such as voice notes and photographs would help combat this. This is an intended design feature, however, because of how the protoype is currently designed, parents perceived the app as primarily relying on the use of textual information. Practitioners framed their concerns regarding accessibility around digital inclusion, and whether certain groups of parents and carers might be excluded from using the app. For some, this would be due to not having adequate access to, or sufficient skills to use, digital technology: ‘Technology as well, that could be a barrier to a lot of my families, a lot of my families don’t really have, they have like, an old, like Nokia, they’ve not necessarily got smartphones, tablets. That might be a barrier.’ (SW3, practitioner’s group)

Practitioners believed that for some groups of parents, the issues were around aspects of their lives that would make it difficult to engage with the app, such as mental health or substance misuse problems, which may also involve not having sufficient access to a device with the internet. Practitioners themselves did not feel confident using new technologies, so were therefore concerned in their skills in showing parents how to use the app effectively. One suggested ‘it’ll be like the blind leading the blind’ (practitioner focus group). They reflected on things that had worked when they had previously adapted to using a new technology, such as case management systems or MS Teams. They stated that having ‘champions’ in the organisation who they could contact for advice and support on how to use the app would help. Additionally, using a new technology repeatedly over time helped develop their skills and knowledge. Time burden A central facilitator or barrier to using the app was the amount of time it would take, and for professionals, whether this would save them time elsewhere or create more work. Parents suggested that to adopt the app into regular use, they would need to be motivated to prioritise using the app whilst caring for children or maintaining a household. The father’s group suggested that the volume of questions and the frequency that parents were expected to interact with the app were seen to be influence how they perceived the time burden of the app: ‘Every question here is what the parent or the child is going to have to type out themselves. It’s all extra work and then child aren’t going to be bothered doing it half the time, or if the parents are too busy [too].’ (P22, father’s group)

‘One thing is how often you’d expect them [parents] to interact with the app. You might expect a parent to interact with it once a day, but they’re gonna get bored of it. Where [it would work] if you do it like once a week or once a fortnight, where you update your actions on it and you don’t need to put so much, don’t make it so complicated.’ (P23, father’s group)

There was recognition that for parents to use the app, they would need to be motivated, partly because there would be a learning curve when first using it: ‘it’s good but people have to be motivated, it can’t be boring’ (P23, father’s group)

‘At first yeah, like anything, first time I try I mess things up cos i don’t know what I’m doing.’ (P21, father’s think aloud)

This highlighted that the early stages after the app has first been introduced to parents would be important, because if a parent developed a perception that the app was overly time consuming, boring or difficult to use, then it would be difficult to build their motivation to use the app. Practitioners echoed that the initial period of using the app, for example setting up a families’ goals might be time-consuming. There was a concern that needing to set separate goals for each family member within the plan on the app might be more time consuming than current practices regarding social work plans, where actions for a family are consolidated into a single plan: (SW2, practitioner focus group)

There was a recognition that after an initial setting up period, if used correctly, there could be a time saving: (SW1, practitioner focus group) ‘SWs are always overworked, overwhelmed with the workload. I’m just saying, you know, if we’ve got a family of five kids, are we going to have to go into each separate profile to do their actions. Where when we have a child in need plan, a child protection plan, all those actions are within that one page. So we are going from one form, to doing five forms?’ ‘I suppose that is how it would have to be, if it were linked [to the case management system] somehow … when we do our first few visits and we are getting to know a family, it could be around this [the app], entering that information in, ‘cause then you’ve got it for the future haven’t you.’ The overriding concern of practitioners was that the app would lead to a duplication of work. All practitioners were unanimous in the view that if they were required to record information into the app and record the same or similar information into a case management system separately, then this would be a significant barrier to using it. ‘Would this replace the [case management] system? That’s the key thing. It needs to be something that we use for everything, not an additional thing we log into.’ (SW2, practitioner focus group)(SW5, practitioner focus group)

A linked concern to the duplication of work, was that it was important that the app did not create additional work for them through needing to chase professionals from other agencies to provide updates within the app. There was a concern that current difficulties regarding the capacity of other professionals to attend meetings would by repeated through the app: ‘How would it work with health professionals? Especially on child in need plans, a lot of the time, at the minute, they’re not even attending meetings and things like that. So, health professionals, schools, all the different agencies that we work with, they would all have to agree to this as well.’ (SW3, practitioner focus group)

Practitioners explained that their local authority was transitioning to a new model of working, whereby social workers and professionals from other agencies would be based on the same teams, which they saw as being a likely facilitator for the app to be used effectively by different professionals. The way that the app automates certain reminders linked to actions and goals, for example regarding attending appointments was seen as potentially saving time by practitioners not needing to prompt parents themselves: ‘Just not having more work. If that is streamlined, if that links to what we’re doing, and we do a C&F and then we do a plan, and that plan goes onto that, then that’s great. But if I’ve got to do that plan, and then do five other plans with each child, with each parent. Well at the minute I’ve got one with four children, one mum and four dad’s, so that would be a lot of work for me to go out to do that with each parent, in individual homes, going to sit down with the dad, let’s put your bit in, get your profile up and running … but if it’s streamlined and that links to our assessments and stuff then that would be good.’ And if they got a… say we set an action saying this needs to be completed by the 5th, would they get a notification saying this action needs to be completed for today? So they were doing it rather than us needing to chase them around, that would be beneficial ‘cause that’s cutting out a lot of work for us, in terms of the chasing.’ (SW2, practitioner focus group) In summary, both practitioners and parents had concerns about the time it would take to use the app, and that this would be directly linked with their motivation to use it. For parents, the time taken was related to their perceptions about how it feels to use the app, for example if the amount of questions felt too burdensome. For practitioners, they were concerned about whether the app would cause more work either through duplicating the recording of information or through creating more tasks. Practitioners saw the potential for the app to save time if used as intended. For this to happen, certain conditions must be met, namely that the app does not duplicate tasks with the case management system, and that other agencies, such as education and health, also engage with the app without the need for prompts.

3.6 Accountability through the app

Both parent groups were enthusiastic about the potential for the app to provide accountability with regards to making visible how different parties, both family members and professionals, did or did not engage with social work plans: ‘If you do this right there should be no excuses for anybody on any side and it gives everybody accountability for everything.’ (P23, men’s think aloud interview) ‘Paper chase of everything, cos everything is there, it’s all written down, nobody can lie about anything that’s been said.’ (P4, mother’s focus group)

Parents shared experiences where actions for practitioners to complete were recorded on plans, which were not completed, and which they then found ways to cover this up in case planning meetings. The app was seen as a way to prevent this from happening: ‘Yeah and it also works with you guys, cos it’s there what time and day you did it, so you can’t say ‘oh I did it weeks ago’… bulls**t. It happens, it happens.’ (P21, father’s focus group)

‘So they don’t have to chase anyone up do they, they can just put a message on there and say right can I have the assessments from x y and z and then the people have to put it on otherwise they’ll look like a tool.’ (P9, mother’s focus group)

Parents in both groups had reservations as to whether separated co-parents would engage with the app, based on their experiences of how co-parents currently engage with social work plans. Some expressed a view that the app would help evidence co-parents’ lack of engagement and make communication transparent: ‘I actually think, P6, you think it would be bad for you with your ex-partner right. I actually think it’d be great ‘cause it takes away all power and all communication between [you], it’s all documented.’ (P7, mother’s focus group)

3.7 Ownership of goals

Parents stated that the way that the app is structured would make them feel more invested in the goals that are set. The way that the app clearly visualises progress, and that this could be accessed by the parent at any time, would make them more motivated to undertake the actions attached plans in the app. One parent suggested that the language used in the app helped centre the parent as the agent of change, whilst challenging them to undertake the identified actions: ‘I like the first question, “you”… challenging myself. I do like that. If I find things too easy, I might switch off. How can I make the situation better, and that’s what I like.’ (P24, father’s focus group)

One parent suggested that the ability to visualise progress and dips would not just motivate them to make changes, but would also promote self-management: ‘But what would be good is having a chart with progress and see how you’ve done over 6-12 months or something – doing good, then a dip, then better. You can see your balance yourself. It makes it good but you have to want to do it, have to want to use it properly.’ (PP21, father’s group) Some practitioners also shared this view, suggesting that it would be good for parents to ‘own goals’ through the app (SW3, practitioner think aloud interview).

3.8 Safety

Safety was an issue raised by both sets of focus groups. There were several considerations raised specific to the children’s social care context where risk and conflict between family members are common issues that need to be managed in routine practice. The issues raised regarding the safety within app reflect this. Parents, particularly in the mother’s focus group expressed concerns that some children may not be able to use the app freely, for example if a parent puts pressure on them: ‘I think … it’s putting children in a vulnerable state, where … the parents are like, either one parent or both parents, are in the same room, in the same household, and you know checking over the shoulder what they’re writing’ (P1, mother’s group)

For children where relationships with parents were difficult, there was a worry that their use of the app may trigger conflict or abuse: ‘There was a child who I know who wanted out of her mum’s house, and she would have happily put her whole life on there so social services would have took her, but she would have had the backlash, because she lived with her mum. So… you need like, [children] of a certain age, are they allowed to have the app themselves, and only the social worker have access maybe? I don’t know, how would you do that?’ (P4, mother’s group)

A linked concern was that conflict, for example between separated parents or extended family members, could be reflected through the app. It was agreed that these problems could be mitigated against to an extent through the ‘manage access’ function of the app: ‘when it came to [extended] families seeing like the plan and everything, I think like, they should have their own separate section, because if it is entwined with yours, especially like my family, they would wanna be like … ‘you’re going to listen to us, and this is how we’re going to do things’ JD: So there’s some bits you wouldn’t want them to access? P1: Yeah.’ (P1, mother’s group)

Practitioners also highlighted several considerations regarding safety that using the app might raise. It was highlighted that there would need to be clarity about expectations placed upon social workers when using the app, for example the time intervals that they would check the app for plan updates for each family. Practitioners suggested it would be important not to miss an important update that required action, or that may indicate an increased risk to a family, such as evidence of self-harm or low mood. Practitioners also suggested that some parents might use the app when distressed and send abusive messages: ‘I get voicenotes calling me all the names under the sun, they’re going to do that on this.’ (SW1, practitioner group)

Notably, it was acknowledged that the app would only reflect what happens anyway, rather than be a trigger for abuse or harassment from parents. A possible solution was suggested that the app could identify and flag certain words associated risk or harassment and send an automated message to parents.

4. Discussion

In summary, the focus groups and ‘think aloud’ interviews outline a number of potential facilitators and barriers to the app being perceived as acceptable by the parents and professionals who participated. Both groups saw value in the underpinning ideas of the app and the potential for it to achieve its aims, though concerns were expressed about how the app would interact with existing challenges in the children’s social care context. The parent groups were overall enthusiastic about the app, stating explicitly the potential for it to foster their motivation to engage in social work plans. There were some differences between the mother’s group and father’s group, namely that participants in the mother’s group expressed more views concerning safety. Practitioners were generally more cautious about the app, seeing its potential but also expressing concerns as to whether it would reduce their recording burden in practice. It is positive that most issues raised by the focus groups had been identified during the app’s design stage as potential barriers to use. Because the app protoype will require further development before being ready for testing in a ‘real life’ setting, there is scope to address these issues through later design iterations as well as implementation plans. The two main issues raised that need attention prior to attempting to implement the app in a ‘real world’ setting are around the perceived safety and time burden of using the app. Due to the context that the app is designed to be used within, it will not be possible to eliminate risk associated with the app’s use. It is important however that end users do not perceive the app to amplify existing risks through its use.

With regards to the time burden, practitioners expressed a desire for the app to integrate into case management systems. A possible alternative solution would be for the app to produce a document file that could be saved directly into case management systems. Linked to this, there remains an unresolved issue as to whether the app is designed to replace existing social work plans, currently housed within case management systems, or whether it is an additional tool that complements existing social work plans. Notwithstanding technical difficulties regarding how the app interfaces with existing case management systems, there are respective challenges associated with each approach.

On the one hand, if MyPower replaces existing social work plans, this would imply that practitioners and families are mandated to use it, which runs in tension to the notion, expressed by participants, that the app may not be an appropriate fit for all families. At the same time, if MyPower is an additional tool that complements existing social work plans stored in case management systems, this increases the risk, whether it be perceived or real, that using the app could lead to an increased time burden due to the duplication of recording work. There are some limitations to the findings reported in this document. Firstly, it is important to note that all parents who took part were part of a parental support and advocacy organisation meaning they may have been more enthusiastic about MyPower and its underlying principles.

Similarly, practitioners belonged to the same team in a single local authority, and therefore their views may partly reflect the culture and practices of that organisation. We were not able to collect any data from would-be child, adolescent or young adult users, nor practitioners from education or health. This was due to the organisations we contacted, although in principle being open to taking part, not having the capacity to do so within the timescales of the project. Their views will be important to feed into any ‘real world’ piloting of the app.

5. Recommendations

The issues highlighted within this report do not present insurmountable barriers to adoption by user groups but are areas of risk that are likely to require mitigation strategies if adoption is to be achieved. The effectiveness of any mitigation strategies should be incorporated into future evaluation work. Below are some suggested starting points for future work:

5.1 Integration with existing systems

Identify the specific barriers to integrating the app into existing case management systems and determine the feasibility of overcoming these – for example, technical, governance, or commercial barriers. If these barriers cannot be overcome, consider different technical designs whereby records within the app can be transformed into a format that can be uploaded directly into existing case manage systems – such as the production of a PDF document.

5.2 Safety

Develop a detailed risk assessment regarding how the use of the app may amplify existing practice risks and identify ways to mitigate against these. For the next stage of prototype testing, consider trialing the app in a ‘lower-risk’ setting – such as a non-statutory context like early help services – so the risk assessment and mitigating features can be tested.

5.3 Implementation

For settings to trial implementation, consider carefully system factors such as ‘real life’ multi-agency working practices and current practice models for working with families to determine whether these are likely to facilitate both the adoption and appropriate use of the app. For example, where there is already on going practice development work related to collaborative working with families, this may be a facilitating factor.

Ensure that, as part of any implementation trials, there is adequate technical support in place – such as MyPower ‘champions’ – who are motivated and competent users of the app that can support users if problems arise. If MyPower ‘champions’ are also professionals within a setting, they will need to have adequate time to provide support in addition to their usual duties.

References

BASW (2018). 80/20 Campaign: How much ‘direct’ time do social workers spend with children and families? Available at: https://new.basw.co.uk/about-basw/social-work- around-uk/basw-england/campaigns/80-20-campaign (Accessed on 6.8.24) Bywaters, P. and The Child Welfare Inequalities Project Team. (2020).

Child Welfare Inequalities Project: Final Report. Available at: https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/21398145/CWIP_Final_Report.pdf (Accessed on: 06.08.24)

Epton, T., Currie, S., and Armitage, C. J. (2017). Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(12), 1182–1198.

Institute for Government (2023). Performance Tracker 2023: Children’s social care. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/performance-tracker- 2023/childrens-social-care (Accessed on 6.8.24)

MacAlister, J. (2022) The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care Revalier, J., Allen, R., McGowan, J. (2023). ‘Social Worker Working Conditions and Psychological Health: A Longitudinal Study’.

British Journal of Social Work, 53(8), 1170– 1190. Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M. and Francis, J.J. Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 279 (2022).

Simpson J. (2017) ‘Staying in touch in the digital era: New social work practice’, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 35(1), pp. 86–98.