Hospital social workers (HSW) play an important role in health care, providing psychosocial support to families affected by severe illness, and having palliative care needs involving dependent children. However, there are few evidence-based family interventions for HSWs to apply when supporting these families. The Family Talk intervention (FTI), a psychosocial family-based intervention, was therefore evaluated in an effectiveness-implementation study. Within the study, HSWs were educated and trained in the use of FTI in clinical practice. This study examined HSWs’ experiences of barriers and facilitating factors during their initial use of FTI in clinical practice. Altogether, 10 semi-structured focus groups were held with HSWs (n = 38) employed in cancer care and specialized palliative home care for adults, pediatric hospital care, and a children’s hospice. Data were analyzed using content analysis. HSWs considered FTI to be a suitable psychosocial intervention for families affected by severe illness with dependent children. However, the way in which the care was organized acted either as a barrier or facilitator to the use of FTI, such as the HSWs’ integration in the team and their possibility to organize their own work. The HSWs’ work environment also impacted the use of FTI, where time and support from managers was seen as a significant facilitating factor, but which varied between the healthcare contexts. In conclusion, HSWs believed that FTI was a suitable family intervention for families involving dependent children where one family member had a severe illness. For successful initial implementation, strategies should be multi-functional, targeting the care organization and the work environment.

Background: The Family Talk Intervention (FTI) is a psychosocial intervention supporting families where a family member has palliative care needs. This study aimed to evaluate how the Family Talk Intervention (FTI) was implemented over time from the perspective of hospital social workers (HSWs) in their everyday clinical practice among families with a severely ill parent or child in need of palliative care.

Methods: HSWs (n=21) working in adult and children’s care completed a 10-day education where they were trained to use FTI. The education was part of a multifaced implementation strategy involving educational outreach visits, facilitation, clinical implementation meetings, and audit and feedback. The HSWs were then expected to use FTI in their clinical practice to support families with dependent children. To assess if and how FTI was integrated into their daily practice, they were also asked to complete the Swedish version of the Normalization Process Theory Measure (S-NoMAD) on three occasions: on completion of the FTI-education, six months later, and one year later. For the longitudinal analysis of data, Friedman’s test was used.

Results: The HSWs rated the use of FTI high after completing the FTI-education, indicating a positive attitude towards FTI. In the longitudinal analysis, statistically significant changes were seen for two questions in S-NoMAD, where the HSWs’ ratings showed that the FTI became more familiar and normalized over time. Generally, the HSWs’ ratings of S-NoMAD’s main constructs were high and stable over time, indicating a positive view of FTI and its implementation. However, for the single questions, the ratings were slightly more negative to some contextual aspects, such as managerial support and resources.

Conclusion: As results showed, HSW mainly rated different aspects of the implementation process as positive, both from the beginning, but also over time. Therefore, the intervention could be judged to have been implemented as a tool to support families when a parent or a child is severely ill. Contextual factors, involving managerial support and resources were rated lower, indicating the importance of those aspects when introducing interventions into healthcare. The result also indicates that the multifaced implementation strategy supported the HSW’s everyday clinical practice.