Survey

<p dir="ltr">The purpose of this research project is to explore children's social workers' awareness and implementation of the NICE guidelines on self-harm with children in care.</p><p dir="ltr">Children in care are at an increased risk of self-harm with risk rates between two and four-fold higher than children without care experience. However, very little is known about the assessment and management of self-harm in this group. </p><p dir="ltr">This study explores children’s social workers’ knowledge of the NICE guidelines on self-harm and their opportunities, capabilities and motivations to implement them with children in care, using a large-scale online survey. </p><p dir="ltr">The survey consists of 19 questions (three screening questions (1-3), two assessing awareness and implementation levels (4-5), and six assessing opportunity, motivation and capability to implement the NICE guidelines on self-harm, adapted from Keyworth et al., 2020 (items 6-11) based on the COM-B model (Michie et al., 2011); a free response question asking participants if anything has helped or hindered NICE guideline implementation with children in care who self-harm (12); seven questions addressing demographic information (13-19): area of social work specialism, number of years of experience, regional area of work, age, ethnicity, gender and disability status). Items 16-19 ask about personal information of protected characteristics, constructed using Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DAISY) guidance (EDIS & Wellcome, 2022) and Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines (Heidari et al., 2016). These questions contain an optional response of “prefer not to respond.” 18 of 19 items are forced-choice questions, requiring participants to insert a response, meaning items cannot be skipped. Item 12, the free response text item, is the exception. The forced response pattern is to minimise the risk of missing data. All survey items were reviewed by a trauma-informed expert and public contributors with lived experience of self-harm to ensure language sensitivity and acceptability.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>References:</b></p><p dir="ltr">EDIS & Wellcome (2022). ‘The DAISY Guidance Version 2’. Available at: [https://edisgroup.org/resources/practical-tools-and-guidance/diversity-and-inclusion-survey-daisy-question-guidance-v2/] (Accessed: 15 April 2025). </p><p dir="ltr">Heidari, S., Babor, T.F., De Castro, P., Tort S., Curno, M. (2016)<i>.</i> Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. <i>Res Integr Peer Rev,</i> 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6</p><p dir="ltr">Keyworth, C., Epton, T., Goldthorpe, J., Calam, R., Armitage, C.J. (2020) Acceptability, reliability, and validity of a brief measure of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations (“COM-B”). <i>British Journal of Health Psychology</i>, 25 (3), 474-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12417</p><p dir="ltr">Michie, S., Van Stralen, M.M., & West, R. (2011). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions. <i>Imp Sci.</i> <i>6</i>, 42.</p>