Skip to main content
Download PDF

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice, and social care: a scoping review

Systematic Reviews volume 12, Article number: 194 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Establishing and maintaining relationships and ways of connecting and being with others is an important component of health and wellbeing. Harnessing the relational within caring, supportive, educational, or carceral settings as a systems response has been referred to as relational practice. Practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers, do not yet share a well-defined common understanding of relational practice. Consequently, there is potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as the risk of policy and practice being increasingly disconnected. Comprehensive reviews are needed to support the development of a coherent shared understanding of relational practice.

Method

This study uses a scoping review design providing a scope and synthesis of extant literature relating to relational practice focussing on organisational and systemic practice. The review aimed to map how relational practice is used, defined and understood across health, criminal justice, education and social work, noting any impacts and benefits reported. Searches were conducted on 8 bibliographic databases on 27 October 2021. English language articles were included that involve/discuss practice and/or intervention/s that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects.

Results

A total of 8010 relevant articles were identified, of which 158 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most were opinion-based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. A further 27 (17.09%) were categorised as case studies, focussing on explaining relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service, with only 11 including any empirical data. Of the included empirical studies, 45 were qualitative, 6 were quantitative, and 9 mixed methods studies. There were differences in the use of terminology and definitions of relational practice within and across sectors.

Conclusion

Although there may be implicit knowledge of what relational practice is the research field lacks coherent and comprehensive models. Despite definitional ambiguities, a number of benefits are attributed to relational practices.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42021295958

Peer Review reports

Background

While there is not a clearly outlined definition of relational practice it is generally understood as an approach that gives priority to interpersonal relationships in both in relation to external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. It is the foundation upon which effective interventions are made, and it forms the conditions for a healthy relational environment [1]. Notions of relational practice are not new. Systematised relational, psychosocial approaches to mental health care have a lengthy heritage, for example in the development of therapeutic communities [2]. Building on such traditions, Haigh and Benefield [3] describe the importance of relational practice in working toward a unified model of human development, with cross-sector implications. Within their work, they describe the importance of a ‘whole-person, whole-life perspective in the field of human relations’ with the quality of relational activity defined as being central to positive human outcomes and effective service provision [3]. The term relational practice is increasingly described and applied across different service contexts, including health, education, criminal justice and social work. The ways in which relational practice is described varywidely but include Psychologically Informed Environments, Enabling Environments and Psychosocial Environments, as well as other environments and work practices that use the relational practice label to describe their provision.

The importance of relationships and ways of connecting and being with others cannot be underestimated with respect to positive health, wellbeing and other outcomes (such as mental health recovery, overcoming social challenges, rehabilitation in criminal justice services and learning). However, practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers have not yet articulated a shared understanding of relational practice [3]. Consequently, there is a potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as a risk of policy and practice being disconnected. Further, inconsistency in terminology between disciplines is likely to result in separate knowledge bases being developed in parallel, complicating and compromising transfer of evidence into practice across fields.

While there are some systematic or scoping reviews of relational practice in specific service provision, such as acute care settings [4] or after-school provision [5], to date, there has been no comprehensive synthesis or mapping of the extant relational practice literature, across disciplines. Largely absent from the literature are reviews that focus on organisational practice using relational approaches, rather than focused on individual and/or therapeutic relationships. This scoping review maps and combines literature across a range of disciplines (Health, Education, Criminal Justice, and Social Care/Work) to provide clarity and direction, charting and summarising existing understandings. As we aimed to examine evidence from disparate or heterogeneous sources, rather than seeking only the best evidence to answer a specific question, a scoping review methodology was considered appropriate [6]. This methodology enables an examination and synthesis of the extent, range and nature of research on relational practice across health, criminal justice, social care/work and education, to inform future systematic reviews, and to identify gaps in the literature [7]. The four chosen sectors (health, criminal justice, social care/work and education) were included as these are all people facing public service contexts where relationships and relational practices are of crucial importance. We used the service provision being provided or discussed in the papers as criteria for inclusion rather than academic discipline.

The review focuses specifically on the relational practice used in an organisational context rather than in one-to-one approaches (i.e., individualised therapeutic approaches). We used the following definition: relational practice from a systemic and organisational perspective, defined as practice and/or intervention that prioritises interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. This approach was adopted owing to the ambitious and broad scope of this review, but also to add a focus as there is a wide range of relational approaches that are focused upon individualised interventions, such as therapeutic relationships and other evidence-based therapeutic/psychological approaches, but less is known about relational approaches at an organisational level. Within the review, we also scoped the extant literature for any reported impacts and benefits of relational practice.

Research question

How is relational practice used, defined and understood across different academic disciplines, professional practices and contexts, focussing on Health, Education, Criminal Justice, and Social Care/Work, and what are its reported impacts and benefits?

Method

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping reviews [6]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) is provided in Additional file 1. Prior to commencement, the review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: PROSPERO2021CRD42021295958) and is available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021295958.

A multi-disciplinary core research team was brought together made up of academics, clinicians and people with lived experience of service provision with representation from health, education, social care/work and criminal justice experiences. A steering group committee was also convened with similar representative experience. This group provided oversight of the project, informed by subject matter expertise complimenting cross-sector and occupational/lived experience among the membership and supported with the search strategy, identifying search terms and the synthesis of the literature.

Search strategy

Searches were conducted on eight electronic databases (EPIC, SocIndex, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Education Abstracts, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and Criminal Justice Database) on 27 October 2021. Keywords for database searches included the following:

  • Relational focussed OR relational based OR relational work OR Relational social work OR Relational centred OR Relational centered OR relational practice* or relational informed OR relational theory OR relational approach* OR relational perspective* OR relational model OR relational strategy or relational strategies OR relational environment* or relational justice* OR relational education* or relational health OR relational therapy OR relational thinking OR relational inquiry OR relationship focussed OR relationship based practice OR relationship informed OR interpersonal system OR interpersonal environment* OR interpersonal practice OR interpersonal approach* or interpersonal perspective OR interpersonal strategy or interpersonal strategies OR psychosocial environments OR enabling environments

The full search strategy for each database is included in Additional file 2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review are displayed in Table 1. In order to encompass a broad range of approaches, the relational practice was broadly defined as practices and/or interventions that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in relation to both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. Articles were included where relational practice was seen as the foundation upon which effective interventions are made and form the conditions for a healthy relational environment. Because the focus of this review was on organisational processes, articles exclusively about the therapeutic relationship and/or therapeutic approaches were only included if they informed a systemic and organisational approach.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

All types of studies (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods), conceptual or theoretical papers/reports and all types of reviews (i.e., systematic, scoping, meta-analysis) were included, reported in peer-reviewed journals, grey literature and book and book chapters fully available online. Only articles published in English were included; however, there was no limit on the country of origin. Only articles published from 2000 were included to focus on current/recent practice and service delivery.

Study/paper selection

All records identified from the database searches were downloaded to EndNote and duplicates were removed using Systematic Review Accelerator [8]. Any remaining citations were transferred to Rayyan for screening, and any further duplicates identified were removed. Title and abstract screening were conducted in Rayyan independently by five reviewers (PB, RN, MM, GL, JP), with 20% of the papers screened independently by at least two reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was 84.09% at the title and abstract stage. Once title and abstract screening were complete, selected full-text papers were sourced and checked against inclusion criteria by six reviewers independently (PB, RN, MM, GL, JP), with at least 20% of the papers screened by at least two reviewers. An inter-rater reliability of 85% was achieved at the full-text screening stage. Reasons for exclusion were noted at this stage. Agreement at all stages was made by consensus, and any disagreements regarding inclusion were discussed with a third member of the research team where necessary.

Data extraction

Data were extracted from all selected texts using a data extraction sheet designed by the research team in collaboration with the steering group committee. The data extraction tool was piloted and refinements made. Following this authors completed data extraction for a sample of 10 studies as sufficient agreement was reached the authors then applied to tool to the remaining studies independently. Data extraction included key study/article characteristics (e.g., country), people facing service type, sector type, aims of study, study/article type, including key information for empirical studies (i.e., participants, design, data collection methods), underlying theories, key terms and definitions of relational practice and reported impacts and benefits. The research team collectively carried out calibration testing of the tool with a sample of articles prior to the assignment of independent data extraction of research team members [9].

Data synthesis

Data extracted from selected articles was charted, and a mapping of the scope of the literature was conducted using narrative synthesis. Narrative synthesis is an often-used approach within systematic and scoping study literature reviews. This approach enables the synthesis of large bodies of literature and looks to explore the relationships in the dataset collected and analyse commonalities, conflicts and relationships that assist us to reach conclusions and make recommendations for practice [10]. Consultation with the steering group committee throughout the data synthesis stage supported the interpretation and synthesis of the review findings.

Results

The results of the systematic search and screening process are displayed in a PRISMA flow chart (see Fig. 1). A total of 11,490 articles were initially identified from database searches. After the removal of duplicates, 8010 were retained, and 521 remained for full-text review. Overall, 158 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Table 2 displays the characteristics of the studies/articles included.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart

Full size image
Table 2 Characteristics of included articles/studies
Full size table

Country

Country relating to the service or organisation discussed was extracted from the included articles, where this was not identified the author’s affiliated country was noted. Figure 2 displays the countries represented in the included articles. Most of the included articles were from the UK (n = 48, 30.38%), followed by the USA (n = 32, 20.25%) and Canada (n = 25, 15.82%). There was however a broad and global spread of literature across the rest of the included literature.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Frequencies of countries represented in the included articles/studies

Full size image

Sector type

In relation to the four sector types, health has the highest proportion of included literature (n = 60, 37.92%), followed by education (n = 41, 25.95%), social work/care (n = 39, 24.68%), and criminal justice (n = 17, 10.76%), with 1 paper that was across the 4 sectors [3]. Table 3 displays the frequencies of the sector types across the included articles/studies alongside the specific service/focus within each sector.

Table 3 Frequencies of articles/studies for each sector type with specific service type or focus
Full size table

Study/article type

Study/article types were categorised as scoping or systematic reviews, empirical studies (either qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), case studies, critical/narrative or opinion pieces/theoretical arguments. There was some overlap between the last three categories (e.g., some publications emphasising opinion or theoretical argument may also have included some brief details about application in a specific site/s). Where there was overlap the coders recorded the category that was closest to the authors’ stated intention (i.e., the aims of the article).

Descriptions of these articles were as follows:

  • Case study—a discussion or examination of relational practice or application of a delivery model in a specific site/s.

  • Critical/narrative review—generalised critique of relational practice or a particular philosophical approach and/or critical review of literature

  • Opinion piece/theoretical argument—where authors are proposing a particular approach or theoretical model for relational practice and/or an opinion of how to apply relational practice in a specific sector or the importance of relational practice in a specific sector

A large proportion of publications were opinion-based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with a further 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. These publications tended to propose models of relational practice or make arguments for the use of the relational practice in a specific service or organisation (see Table 2 for a summary of the aims of these studies/articles). An additional large number of included publications reported qualitative studies (n = 45, 28.48%) or case studies (n = 27, 17.09%). There was a lack of effectiveness trials or quantitative studies, with only 6 (3.80%) using a quantitative design and 9 (5.70%) using a mixed methods design.

Of the included publications, 27 were categorised as case studies, and 16 were descriptions of a practice or organisation and did not include any empirical data, although some did provide literature review and/or citations of other evidence sources relating to effectiveness [21, 101]. In these publications, the focus was predominately on explaining the relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service. Four of these case studies were related to criminal justice services; one discussed the application of democratic therapeutic communities in the prison service [21], a further two discussed transition programmes for female offenders [28, 74] and one a community wealth-building project to promote successful re-entry for people released from prison [129]. Five of these articles related to an education setting and discussed applying the relational practice in the provision of faculty support [73], mentoring [108], delivery of a CPD course in community development [128], approach in a special school for adolescents with emotional, behavioural and educational issues [90] and using co-inquiry to form a partnership between students and lecturers in a university [160]. Six studies were health-related describing interventions for women with substance use problems and mental illness [72, 119], community-based nursing service for children and families [126] and a school obesity programme [107]. A final case study of a large UK local authority adult care department to describe a new practice model for social care [118].

The other 11 case studies included numerically informed quantitative data evaluating the service, intervention or practice described and are included alongside the studies using qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method study designs in Table 4. Most of the empirical evidence relating to the case studies is qualitative and focussed on the perceived impacts and benefits of the provision/intervention (see Table 4). Findings also relate to the importance of an institutional buy-in to the practice and support and training of staff in the approach to ensure success [41, 57, 135].

Table 4 Descriptions of empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, including case studies with empirical data)
Full size table

Approaches used in the included mixed method studies varied widely (see Table 4) and often highlighted or focussed on the benefits of relational practice, rather than assessing effectiveness. Across the articles, the multi-component and complexity of relational practice is demonstrated (see Table 4).

Qualitative studies were mostly from health and social care/work sectors and highlight the time investment needed with relational approaches; noting the importance of staff motivation in order for relational practice to occur (see Table 4). The importance of trust was regularly mentioned across the articles and the importance of sharing stories and developing narratives, particularly around marginalisation to promote inclusion was highlighted.

Quantitative studies were fewer and varied; some focussed on examining the frequency or prevalence of relational practice and others examined the associated impacts (see Table 4).

A further 4 (2.53%) of the included publications were systematic or scoping reviews. There were two systematic reviews and one scoping review where relational practice was discussed. One systematic review synthesised qualitative research into older people’s experiences of acute healthcare [33], another synthesised research in adult acute inpatient mental health units, which focused on nurse-patient interaction [43] and a further systematic review used a meta-ethnography approach and explored studies of parent-school relations which impact positively on parents, regarding empowerment, parent voice and social capital [44]. The scoping review mapped health and social care and broader management literature to identify and extract important behaviours, processes and practices underlying the support of high-quality relationships [82].

Definitions and underlying theories

The commonly used terms for defining relational practice and the underlying theories mentioned across the included articles are featured in Table 5.

Table 5 Relational practice terms used, with underlying theories, across the 4 sectors
Full size table

The table shows that within the cross-sectoral terms being used to define relational practice that there are some certain commonalities, but equally there are different terms used aligned more to those specific sector types. For example, psychologically informed planned environments seem to be unique to criminal justice, relational learning and relational pedagogies to education, relational care to health and relational social work practices within social care. In contrast, enabling environments cross over criminal justice and health sectors, but are not mentioned within education or social work. Interpretation of the comparison of the cross-sector underlying theories however has fewer commonalities which is likely owing to the different sectors having more generally underpinning theoretical frameworks that are sector-specific.

Reported impacts and benefits of relational practice

A total of 76 (48.10%) articles reported impacts and/or benefits of relational practice. Over half (n = 47, 61.84) of these articles noted workforce impact or client impacts (n = 41, 53.95%). A further 12 (15.79%) reported organisational/systemic impacts.

Health impacts could be seen across all sectors but rarely were they directly noted as a health impact, these have been broken down as workforce and client impacts.

In relation to workforce impacts, it is apparent that the workforce, when this way of working is embraced, benefit from the enhanced knowledge, insights, healthy working environments, and enhanced understanding of interpersonal dynamics. The use of relational practice also appears to enhance team cohesion and shared experiences [49, 63, 65, 72, 81, 89, 100, 118]. Some articles also reported skills enhancements from the adoption of relational practice with the enhancement of interpersonal skills including communication and empathetic listening [2, 34, 48, 50, 59, 60, 65, 72, 83, 85, 90, 101, 120, 139]. Personal benefits relating to confidence, increased employee satisfaction and more effective impact upon the progression and achievements of clients were also described [11, 12, 15,16,17, 20, 21, 26, 32, 33, 35, 58, 59, 63,64,65, 67, 72, 75, 76, 80,81,82,83,84,85, 90, 100, 108, 120, 125, 129, 130, 140, 145, 148].

Client health impacts included enhancement of wellbeing [16, 82, 139], physically, psychologically, socially, improved child custody [13] and physical health outcomes [74], mental health outcomes [81, 114, 139] and various educational attainments/outcomes [11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 75, 79, 80, 108, 140]. Recovery from client difficulties substance use difficulties, physical health, mental health and criminal justice outcomes were reported alongside enhanced interpersonal relationships with service providers and carers/families [44, 45, 63, 64]. Positive impacts of relational practice were reported in the reduction of health inequalities and engagement with society which included a reported sense of community belonging [28, 37, 86, 120]. From a health impact perspective, reports of reductions in trauma and re-traumatisation [81], emotional regulation skills and buffering of stress impacts were reported as was the reduction in re-offending and violent incidents in criminal justice contexts [21]. Promoting a sense of belonging was considered to have an important impact on health, and where relational approaches were not being used this could be overlooked [28, 139].

Whilst impacts from a more organisational perspective were less likely to be reported, when they were these referred to poignant and important learning and included the development of healthy sustainable communities [47, 129, 148]. The literature also referred to the development of insights into what works and what is important, with ideas shared such as the replacement of coercive controlling environments to negotiated engaged environments [50]. The invisibility of relational and interpersonal work was often described but its cruciality to working with people facing services and the importance of collaboration was also emphasised [48, 49, 85]. The relational practice was deemed to go beyond traditional working, having the potential to create environments with a focus on interagency working, emotional availability, enhancing the wellbeing of clients and the workforce alike.

Discussion

This scoping of the literature identified a lack of articulation of a clear definition of relational practice within and across sectors. Rather, there is a more diffuse acknowledgement that various service provision settings enhance experiences and outcomes for the people who occupy these settings, be they designated as staff or service users. Whilst there is a view that there is an implicit knowledge of what relational practice is, this review demonstrates the lack of an explicit consensus and clarity across the sectors.

Whilst highlighting some commonalities in relation to what is meant by relational practice across the four sectors, the review also identifies certain unique differences. From an organisational level, there were very few explicit definitions of what relational practice is, or it consists of, but instead, a complex and multi-facetted complicated picture emerged that warrants some further synthesis using a different methodology, such as a conceptual review (currently being undertaken by the authors). There is a need for consensus and a unified model of understanding that Haigh and Benefield [3] have started to attend to, however, what has not been achieved previously is the scoping of the literature across the world and in the ambitious cross-sector approach we have adopted. This cross-sector approach adopted identified areas of agreement and conflict, but also enabled a shared learning approach to this important but lacking clarity concept of what relational practice is in an organisational context.

Equally through this review, we have discovered that whilst there are some sector-specific models of practice being proposed, there is a lack of empirical evidence relating to the implementation of relational practice and its effectiveness as we found no controlled trials and appropriately designed evaluation studies. Currently, most of the literature across the sectors identified was focussed upon opinion-based or qualitative studies. Owing to the lack of effectiveness trials and appropriately designed evaluations, we are also unable to examine impacts and effectiveness.

This review highlights that whilst the adopted use of ‘relational practice’ is increasingly being used in a variety of guises across sectors, the lack of definitional precision and clarity of understanding is problematic. There is however a sense that positive human relations can be aggregated within a setting harnessing a systematic, collective, rather than individual, approach to providing care, support or education across a variety of settings. Similarly, various theoretical perspectives are drawn upon without necessarily furnishing a unified conceptual basis for the described relational practice.

There is a tradition of practice-oriented rhetoric valuing so-called therapeutic relationships within health and social care systems, often associated with professional nursing [187] or social work practice [188]. More often than not, however, such commentary and theory-building are focused upon individual encounters rather than systemic interventions. A notable exception is the therapeutic community tradition that in turn developed out of a radical, innovative social psychiatric movement that has waned in influence in recent times but, nevertheless has offered an important legacy in initiatives such as psychologically informed planned environments (PIPES) [189] and the enabling environments kitemark in inpatient mental health services [190]. Recent scandals of abuse and neglect within inpatient mental health settings arguably expose the stark need for more organisationally defined approaches to therapeutic and supportive caring relations [191].

Albeit not exclusively, adult nursing appears more focused on technical aspects of care in contrast to forms of interpersonal and relational care more likely to be emphasised in mental health and addictions practice. The appeal of relational practice speaks to recent professional contestation of a perceived shift to the genericisation of mental health nurse education, where arguably core relational skills are poorly served in curricula that now prioritise adult nursing competencies [192]. In this regard, affinities for more relational approaches to care are associated with a preferred professional identity [193], and such affinities are often shared by service users seeking alternative forms of care and support to more narrowly defined bio-psychiatry, especially where this collides with coercive social control rather than consensual care and support [194].

Limitations

Our findings represent the first scoping of the extant literature focusing on organisation and systemic relational practice across the four key sectors of service provision: health, social care, education and criminal justice. However, this review is not without limitations and hence the results whilst not conclusive should be also treated with caution. This is the first review to broadly scope relational practice across 4 sectors. There were clear overlaps across the sectors explored and a lack of clarity and consensus made this review challenging. The lack of a clear definition resulted in the broad search strategy and reaching a consensus within the research team at each stage required much deliberation.

We also chose to focus our review specifically organisational practice using a relational approach. We could equally have chosen to conduct this review from an individualised interaction perspective; however, to ensure that the review had focus and was feasible to conduct within our existing resources, we determined organisational and system-focussed relational practice would provide the greatest examples of this increasingly described way of working and enhancing practice in people-facing services.

Even with this narrowed focus, the size of the review across the 4 sectors remained ambitious and included a wide range of different types of publications. We were not able due to the scale of included papers to conduct a thorough quality appraisal as suggested by Levac et al. [195] enhanced scoping study methodology, so we have not reported on the quality/reliability of the articles included. There is also a risk of bias due to paper heterogeneity both within and across the disciplines; however, this can also be seen as a strength of the study as there are many benefits of adopting such a broad approach.

Conclusions

The review shows that the concept of relational practice has good applied value, as evidenced by impact, yet the underpinning empirical evidence is limited and hence there is a need for clarity of understanding and more scientific effectiveness studies within this increasingly growing and important field of practice across sectors.

Ultimately, there is a need for conceptual standardisation of relational practice that draws upon the cross-sector intelligence. This in turn will facilitate a movement towards conceptual standardisation across the sectors. Conceptual inconsistencies hamper attempts to empirically investigate the relational practice constructs as is seen in the lack of research to test effectiveness, not least because this leads to a multitude of operationalisations of one construct.

This scoping review was necessary not merely to capitalise on what appears to be a cross-sector growing practice movement, which is highly valued, but also to avoid more ideologically based ways of practising which, potentially, are dependent on individual characteristics and intuition. It is perhaps not surprising that ‘relational practice’; however, it is defined and is highlighted in many papers as having organisational benefits. This scoping review has mapped available research on relational practice across four key fields. Despite certain definitional ambiguities and conceptual complexities, a number of positive benefits are claimed for the various relational approaches deployed within respective organisations.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Johnson R, Haigh R. Social psychiatry and social policy for the twenty-first century – new concepts for new needs: relational health. Ment Health Soc Incl. 2011;15(2):57–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/20428301111140895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Haigh R. The quintessence of a therapeutic environment. Ther Communities: Int J Ther Communities. 2013;34:6–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/09641861311330464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Haigh R, Benefield N. Towards a unified model of human development. Ment Health Rev J. 2019;24:124–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-11-2018-0038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Emmamally W, Erlingsson C, Brysiewicz P. In-hospital interventions to promote relational practice with families in acute care settings: a scoping review. J Interdiscip Health Sci. 2022;27. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v27i0.1694.

  5. Malorni A, Lea CH, Richards-Schuster K, et al. Facilitating youth participatory action research (YPAR): a scoping review of relational practice in U.S. Youth development & out-of-school time projects. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2022;136(C). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.

  6. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, et al. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of systematic review assistant-deduplication module. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1).https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-6

  9. Daudt HM, Van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lisy K, Porritt K. Narrative synthesis: considerations and challenges. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2016;14(4):201. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.XEB.0000511348.97198.8c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aggett P, Messent P. Soapbox: technical, relational and relational-collaborative approaches to risk management. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;24(3):642–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andersen EA, Spiers J. Care aides’ relational practices and caring contributions. J Gerontol Nurs. 2016;42(11):24–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Andrews NCZ, Motz M, Pepler DJ, et al. Engaging mothers with substance use issues and their children in early intervention: understanding use of service and outcomes. Child Abuse Negl. 2018;83:10–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andrews NCZ, Pepler DJ, Motz M. Research and evaluation with community-based projects: approaches, considerations, and strategies. Am J Eval. 2019;40(4):548–61.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Appleby J. Social work and service improvement: an example from the first youth forensic forum. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review. 2020;32(1):86–91.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Arnkil TE, Seikkula J. Developing dialogicity in relational practices: reflecting on experiences from open dialogues. Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 2015;36(1):142–54.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Asakura K, Todd S, Eagle B, et al. Strengthening the signature pedagogy of social work: conceptualizing field coordination as a negotiated social work pedagogy. J Teach Soc Work. 2018;38(2):151–65.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bainbridge CL. Restoring ordinariness for women offenders: why every wing matters. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2017;28(2):172–87.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Barrett-Lennard GT. The helping conditions in their context: expanding change theory and practice. Pers-Centered Exp Psychother. 2002;1(1):144–55.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Barrow JF, Combes HA, Rathbone L. Using Q-methodology to explore what is valued from child sexual exploitation services: the importance of safety. J Child Sex Abuse. 2021;30(6):746–63.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bennett J, Shuker R. The potential of prison-based democratic therapeutic communities. Int J Prison Health. 2017;13(1):19–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bennett J, Shuker R. Hope, harmony and humanity: creating a positive social climate in a democratic therapeutic community prison and the implications for penal practice. J Crim Psychol. 2018;8(1):44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Berzoff J, Lucas G, DeLuca D, et al. Clinical social work education in palliative and end-of-life care: relational approaches for advanced practitioners. J Soc Work End Life Palliat Care. 2006;2(2):45–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bjornsdottir K. ‘I try to make a net around each patient’: home care nursing as relational practice. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018;32(1):177–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Blagg H, Tulich T. Diversionary pathways for Aboriginal youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Trends Issues Crime Crim Justice. 2018;557:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Blumhardt H, Gupta A. Radical practice in a risk-averse environment: learning from ATD Fourth World UK. Aotearoa N Z Soc Work Rev. 2017;29(2):19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bøe M, Lorås L, Vigdal MI. Working relationally with youth in child protection institutions: a milieu-therapy perspective. Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 2019;40(2):215–27.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Boober BH, Fortuin B. Reentry without walls or cash: building relationships that work. J Community Correct. 2005;15(2):6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Booth M, Schwartz HL. We’re all adults here: clarifying and maintaining boundaries with adult learners. New Dir Teach Learn. 2012;131:43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Boschki R. Re-reading Martin Buber and Janusz Korczak: fresh impulses toward a relational approach to religious education. Relig Educ. 2005;100(2):114–26.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bridges J, Fuller A. Creating learning environments for compassionate care: a programme to promote compassionate care by health and social care teams. Int J Older People Nurs. 2014;10(1):48–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bridges J, May C, Fuller A, et al. Optimising impact and sustainability: a qualitative process evaluation of a complex intervention targeted at compassionate care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(12):970–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Bridges J, Collins P, Flatley M, et al. Older people’s experiences in acute care settings: Systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;102:103469.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brown T, Winter K, Carr N. Residential child care workers: relationship based practice in a culture of fear. Child Fam Soc Work. 2018;23(4):657–65.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bunar N. Multicultural urban schools in Sweden and their communities: social predicaments, the power of stigma, and relational dilemmas. Urban Educ. 2011;46(2):141–64.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Burchard DJHOs. Ethos, ethics, and endeavors: new horizons in family nursing. J Fam Nurs. 2005;11(4):354–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Byrne B, Case S. Towards a positive youth justice. Safer Communities. 2016;15(2):69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cahill O, Holt S, Kirwan G. Keyworking in residential child care: lessons from research. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2016;65:216–23.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Campbell C, Cornish F. How can community health programmes build enabling environments for transformative communication? Experiences from India and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(4):847–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Carpenter S, Takahashi B, Lertpratchya AP, et al. Greening the campus: a theoretical extension of the dialogic communication approach. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2015;17(4):520–39.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Çelik Ç. Rethinking institutional habitus in education: a relational approach for studying its sources and impacts. Sociology. 2021;55(3):522–38.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cheung JCS. Social work guanxi: a reflexive account of the social work relationship in the Chinese context. Eur J Soc Work. 2017;20(1):101–11.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cleary M, Hunt GE, Horsfall J, et al. Nurse-patient interaction in acute adult inpatient mental health units: a review and synthesis of qualitative studies. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2012;33(2):66–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cleland J, Lumsdon D. How can school-parental participation support the generation of social capital for parents? Educ Child Psychol. 2021;38(2):19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Coleman M, Wallinga C. Teacher training in family involvement: an interpersonal approach. Child Educ. 1999;76(2):76–81.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Collier E, Yates-Bolton N. Older people in mental health care. 2010. p. 239–49.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Collinson B, Best D. Promoting recovery from substance misuse through engagement with community assets: asset based community engagement. Subst Abuse. 2019;13:1178221819876575.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Conradson D. Spaces of care in the city: the place of a community drop-in centre. Soc Cult Geogr. 2003;4(4):507–25.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cranley LA, Slaughter SE, Caspar S, et al. Strategies to facilitate shared decision-making in long-term care. Int J Older People Nurs. 2020;15(3):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Creaney S. The position of relationship based practice in youth justice. Safer Communities. 2014;13(3):120–5.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Creaney S. Still working with “involuntary clients” in youth justice. Br J Community Justice. 2015;13(1):41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Creaney S. “Game playing” and “docility”: youth justice in question. Safer Communities. 2020;19(3):103–18.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Cuyvers G. Developing people in a network of relational practices: reflections on the role of social work education. Eur J Soc Work. 2013;16(2):263–76.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Daly C, Milton E, Langdon F. How do ecological perspectives help understand schools as sites for teacher learning? Prof Dev Educ. 2020;46(4):652–63.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Daniel B-J. Racism is a thing! Reexamination of the concepts of care and relational practice in the preparation of child and youth care practitioners. Relat Child Youth Care Pract. 2018;31(3):31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Garfat T, Fulcher L. Characteristics of a relational child and youth care approach. In: Garfat T, Fulcher L, editors. Child and youth care in practice. Cape Town, South Africa: CYC Net Press; 2012. p. 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Davies J, Pitt C, O’Meara A. Learning lessons from implementing enabling environments within prison and probation: separating standards from process. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019;63(2):218–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Deery R. The tyranny of time: tensions between relational and clock time in community-based midwifery. Soc Theory Health. 2008;6(4):342–63.

    Google Scholar 

  59. DeFrino DT. A theory of the relational work of nurses. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2009;23(4):294–311.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dewar B, Nolan M. Caring about caring: developing a model to implement compassionate relationship centred care in an older people care setting. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(9):1247–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Doane GAH. Beyond behavioral skills to human-involved processes: relational nursing practice and interpretive pedagogy. J Nurs Educ. 2002;41(9):400–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Doane GH, Varcoe C. Relational practice and nursing obligations. Adv Nurs Sci. 2007;30(3):192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dupuis SL, Gillies J, Carson J, et al. Moving beyond patient and client approaches: Mobilizing ‘authentic partnerships’ in dementia care, support and services. Dementia. 2012;11(4):427–52.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Durocher E, Kinsella EA, Gibson BE, et al. Engaging older adults in discharge planning: Case studies illuminating approaches adopted by family members that promote relational autonomy. Disab Rehabil. 2019;41(25):3005–15.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ellery T. Belonging as a pathway to inclusive: an inquiry into supporting inclusive practice in secondary schools. Kairaranga. 2010;20(2):52–62.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Elliott I, Thomas SDM, Ogloff JRP. Procedural justice in contacts with the police: testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2011;17(4):592–610.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Elwyn G. Shared decision making: what is the work? Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(7):1591–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Emmamally W, Brysiewicz P. Family-centred practices of healthcare professionals in three emergency departments in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South Afr J Crit Care. 2018;34(2):38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Emmamally W, Erlingsson C, Brysiewicz P. Describing healthcare providers’ perceptions of relational practice with families in the emergency department: a qualitative study. Curationis. 2020;43(1):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Emmamally W, Erlingsson C, Brysiewicz P. Families’ perceptions of relational practice in the emergency department: a qualitative study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2020;51:100877.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ferguson H, Warwick L, Cooner TS, et al. The nature and culture of social work with children and families in long-term casework: Findings from a qualitative longitudinal study. Child Fam Soc Work. 2020;25(3):694–703.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Finkeistein N, Markoff LS. The Women Embracing Life and Living (WELL) Project: using the relational model to develop integrated systems of care for women with alcohol/drug use and mental health disorders with histories of violence. Alcohol Treat Q. 2005;22(3):63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Fitzmaurice C. Cultivating community: faculty support for teaching and learning. Metrop Univ. 2015;26(3):53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Fortuin B. Maine’s female offenders are reentering - and succeeding. Correct Today. 2007;69(2):34–7.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Frelin A, Grannäs J. Studying relational spaces in secondary school: applying a spatial framework for the study of borderlands and relational work in school improvement processes. Improv Sch. 2014;17(2):135–47.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Frost L. Why teach social work students psychosocial studies? Soc Work Educ. 2008;27(3):243–61.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Gharabaghi K. Relationships with children and families. Child Youth Serv. 2008;30(3):211–34.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Gharabaghi K. Contextual dialectics in relational work with youth. Relat Child Youth Care Pract. 2008;21(2):5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Gill S, Gergen KJ. Educational evaluation: a relational perspective. London: Sage; 2020. pp. 402–11

  80. Giller E, Vermilyea E, Steele T. Risking Connection: helping agencies embrace relational work with trauma survivors. J Psychol Trauma. 2006;5(1):65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Goddard A, Jones RW, Esposito D, et al. Trauma informed education in nursing: a call for action. Nurs Educ Today. 2021;101:104880.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Grimshaw P, McGowan L, McNichol E. Building a system-wide approach to community relationships with the findings of a scoping review in health and social care. J Health Organ Manag. 2016;30(7):1047–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Hibbin R, Warin J. A language focused approach to supporting children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD). Education 3–13. 2019;48(3):316–31.

  84. Holt K, Kelly N. Limits to partnership working: developing relationship-based approaches with children and their families. J Soc Welf Fam Law. 2018;40(2):147–63.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Horowitz D, Guyer M, Sanders K. Psychosocial approaches to violence and aggression: contextually anchored and trauma-informed interventions. CNS Spectr. 2015;20(3):190–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Howitt R, McLachlan K, Tofa M, et al. Witnessing, saving, serving? A relational approach to community development in the suburbs of a global city. J Relig Spiritual Soc Work. 2020;39(1):90–110.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ingólfsdóttir JG, Traustadóttir R, Egilson SÞ. Rethinking practices by rethinking expertise: a relational approach to family-centred inclusive services. Scand J Disabil Res. 2021;23(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Jennings B. Solidarity and care as relational practices. Bioethics. 2018;32(9):553–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Jindra M, Paulle B, Jindra IW. Relational work in the struggle against poverty: balancing scholarly critiques and emancipatory practices in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2020;49(1):160–79.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kanner C, Lee RG, Burley T. The relational ethic in the treatment of adolescents. Gestalt Review. 2005;9(1):72–90.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Kerstetter K. A different kind of discipline: social reproduction and the transmission of non-cognitive skills at an urban charter school. Sociol Inq. 2016;86(4):512–39.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Kippist L, Fulop L, Dadich A, et al. Brilliant renal care: a really positive study of patient, carer, and staff experiences within an Australian health service. J Manag Organ. 2020;26(3):355–74.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kirk G, Duschinsky R. On the margins of the child protection system: creating space for relational social work practice. Child Fam Soc Work. 2017;22(2):963–71.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kitchen J. Relational teacher development: growing collaboratively in a hoping relationship. Teach Educ Q. 2009;36(2):45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Kong S-T. Beyond “safeguarding” and “empowerment” in Hong Kong: towards a relational model for supporting women who have left their abusive partners. J Fam Violence. 2020;36(6):683–94.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Kranke D, Floersch J, Dobalian A. Identifying aspects of sameness to promote veteran reintegration with civilians: evidence and implications for military social work. Health Soc Work. 2019;44(1):61–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Kuperminc GP, Seitz S, Joseph H, et al. Enhancing program quality in a national sample of after-school settings: the role of youth–staff interactions and staff/organizational functioning. Am J Community Psychol. 2019;63(3):391–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kutnick P, Fung D, Mok I, et al. Implementing effective group work for mathematical achievement in primary school classrooms in Hong Kong. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2017;15(5):957–78.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Larkin R, Lefevre M. Unaccompanied young females and social workers: meaning-making in the practice space. Br J Soc Work. 2020;50(5):1570–87.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Laschinger HKS, Wong CA, Cummings GG, et al. Resonant leadership and workplace empowerment: the value of positive organizational cultures in reducing workplace incivility. Nurs Econ. 2014;32(1):5–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Lees J, Haigh R, Lombardo A, et al. Transient therapeutic communities: the “living-learning experience” trainings. Ther Communities. 2016;37(2):57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Lefevre M, Hickle K, Luckock B. “Both/and” not “either/or”: reconciling rights to protection and participation in working with child sexual exploitation. Br J Soc Work. 2019;49(7):1837–55.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Leonardsen D. Empowerment in social work: an individual vs. a relational perspective. Int J Soc Welf. 2007;16(1):3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Lindqvist G, Nilholm C. Promoting inclusion? “Inclusive” and effective head teachers’ descriptions of their work. Eur J Spec Needs Educ. 2014;29(1):74–90.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Ljungblad A-L. Pedagogical relational teachership (PeRT) – a multi-relational perspective. Int J Incl Educ. 2021;25(7):860–76.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Llewellyn J. Integrating peace, justice and development in a relational approach to peacebuilding. Ethics Soc Welfare. 2012;6(3):290–302.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Lloyd J, Wyatt K. The Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP)–an overview of and recommendations arising from the conceptualisation and development of an innovative approach to promoting healthy lifestyles for children and their families. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(1):1003–19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. MacRitchie I. MCR Pathways’ relationship based practice at scale: revolutionising educational outcomes for care-experienced young people. Scot J Resid Child Care. 2019;18(2):92–107.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Markoff LS, Finkelstein N, Kammerer N, et al. Relational systems change: implementing a model of change in integrating services for women with substance abuse and mental health disorders and histories of trauma. J Behav Heal Serv Res. 2005;32(2):227–40.

    Google Scholar 

  110. McCalman J, Benveniste T, Wenitong M, et al. “It’s all about relationships”: the place of boarding schools in promoting and managing health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander secondary school students. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;113:104954.

    Google Scholar 

  111. McCarthy KM. Nurturing the intersubjective capacities of social work students. J Teach Soc Work. 2020;40(1):58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  112. McDonald MA, Bowman M, Brayko K. Learning to see students: opportunities to develop relational practices of teaching through community-based placements in teacher education. Teach Coll Rec. 2013;115(4):1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  113. McMahon MA, Christopher KA. Toward a mid-range theory of nursing presence. Nurs Forum. 2011;46(2):71–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. McPherson L, Gatwiri K, Tucci J, et al. A paradigm shift in responding to children who have experienced trauma: the Australian Treatment and Care for Kids Program. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;94:525–34.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Meer T, Combrinck H. Help, harm or hinder? Non-governmental service providers’ perspectives on families and gender-based violence against women with intellectual disabilities in South Africa. Disabil Soc. 2017;32(1):37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Miller E, Barrie K. Narrative recording as relational practice in social services: a case study from a Scottish Carer Support Organisation. Br J Soc Work. 2020;50(4):995–1012.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Moore T. Complex and conscious. Case study of a change programme in a UK local authority adult care service through a complexity and psychoanalytical lens. J Soc Work Pract. 2021;35(1):39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Moore T, Zeeman L. More “milk” than “psychology or tablets”: mental health professionals’ perspectives on the value of peer support workers. Health Expect. 2020;24(2):234–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Motz M, Leslie M, DeMarch G. Breaking the cycle: using a relational approach to address the impact of maternal substance use on regulation and attachment in children. Zero to Three. 2007;27(4):19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Motz M, Andrews NCZ, Bondi BC, et al. Addressing the impact of interpersonal violence in women who struggle with substance use through developmental-relational strategies in a community program. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4197.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Mulkeen M. Care and the standards of proficiency for social care workers. Ir J Appl Soc Stud. 2020;20(2):8–26.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Munford R, Sanders J. Shame and recognition: social work practice with vulnerable young people. Child Fam Soc Work. 2020;25(1):53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Murphy M, Brown T. Learning as relational: intersubjectivity and pedagogy in higher education. Int J Lifelong Educ. 2012;31(5):643–54.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Muusse C, Kroon H, Mulder CL, et al. Frying eggs or making a treatment plan? Frictions between different modes of caring in a community mental health team. Sociol Health Illn. 2021;43(7):1581–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Muusse C, Kroon H, Mulder CL, et al. Working on and with relationships: relational work and spatial understandings of good care in community mental healthcare in Trieste. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2020;44(4):544–64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Nelson KM, Christensen S, Aspros B, et al. Adding value to stretched communities through nursing actions: the Wellington South Nursing Initiative. Contemp Nurse. 2011;40(1):87–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Nepustil P. Populating recovery: mobilizing relational sources for healing addiction. London: Sage; 2020. 476–86 p.

  128. Newbury J. Creating community: reconsidering relational practice. Relat Child Youth Care Pract. 2012;25(3):6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Nicholson D, McKeown M. Bringing community wealth building to justice: back to a mutual future for probation? Br J Community Justice. 2021;17(2):150–68.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Noam GG, Bernstein-Yamashiro B. Youth development practitioners and their relationships in schools and after-school programs. New Dir Youth Dev. 2013;137:57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Noseworthy DA, Phibbs SR, Benn CA. Towards a relational model of decision-making in midwifery care. Midwifery. 2013;29(7):e42–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. O’Meara A, Edwards M, Davies J. Listening to women: relational approaches to female offender management. Journal of Forensic Practice. 2021;23(1):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Ould Brahim L. Reconsidering the ‘self’ in self-management of chronic illness: lessons from relational autonomy. Nurs Inq. 2019;26(3):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Pahk Y, Baek JS. A relational approach to the design for peer support. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2596.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Parker VA. Connecting relational work and workgroup context in caregiving organizations. J Appl Behav Sci. 2002;38(3):276.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Plamondon K, Caxaj S. Toward relational practices for enabling knowledge-to-action in health systems: the example of deliberative dialogue. Adv Nurs Sci. 2018;41(1):18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Porter-Samuels T, Holley-Boen W. Culturally-responsive relational practice at the chalk-face: a journey to authenticity. Kairaranga. 2019;20(1):33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Pozzuto R, Arnd-Caddigan M, Averett P. Notes in support of a relational social work perspective: a critical review of the relational literature with implications for macro practice. Smith Coll Stud Social Work (Taylor & Francis Ltd). 2009;79(1):5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Quinn K, Mollet N, Dawson F. The compassionate schools framework: exploring a values-driven, hope-filled, relational approach with school leaders. Educ Child Psychol. 2015;38(1):24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Rimm-Kaufman SE, Sawyer BE. Primary-grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the responsive classroom approach. Elem Sch J. 2004;104(4):321.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Segal E. Beyond the pale of psychoanalysis: relational theory and generalist social work practice. Clin Soc Work J. 2013;41(4):376–86.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Smyth J. Teacher development against the policy reform grain: an argument for recapturing relationships in teaching and learning. Teach Dev. 2007;11(2):221–36.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Steckley L. Threshold concepts in residential child care: part 1, the selves of learners and their praxis. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;112:104594.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Svanemyr J, Amin A, Robles OJ, et al. Creating an enabling environment for adolescent sexual and reproductive health: a framework and promising approaches. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(1):S7–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Swan M, Holt S, Kirwan G. ‘Who do I turn to if something really bad happens?’ Key working and relationship-based practice in residential child care. J Soc Work Pract. 2018;32(4):447–61.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Thachuk A. Midwifery, informed choice, and reproductive autonomy: a relational approach. Fem Psychol. 2007;17(1):39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Themane MJ. Transforming schools in low-resourced communities into enabling environments by adjusting the curriculum. Africa Education Review. 2020;16(6):82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Townsend A, Abraham C, Barnes A, et al. “I realised it weren’t about spending the money. It’s about doing something together:” the role of money in a community empowerment initiative and the implications for health and wellbeing. Soc Sci Med. 2020;260:113176.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Trevithick P. Effective relationship-based practice: a theoretical exploration. J Soc Work Pract. 2003;17(2):163–76.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Tudor R. Governing through relationship: a positive critique of school social work practice in post-earthquake, christchurch, New Zealand. Br J Soc Work. 2020;50(5):1457–74.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Turney D. A relationship-based approach to engaging involuntary clients: the contribution of recognition theory. Child Fam Soc Work. 2012;17(2):149–59.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Turney D, Tanner K. Working with neglected children and their families. J Soc Work Pract. 2001;15(2):193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Valaitis RK, O’Mara L, Wong ST, et al. Strengthening primary health care through primary care and public health collaboration: the influence of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2018;19(4):378–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Veenstra G, Burnett PJ. Towards a relational health promotion. Health Promot Int. 2014;31(1):209–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Veenstra G, Burnett PJ. A relational approach to health practices: towards transcending the agency-structure divide. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36(2):187–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Vieille S. Mãori customary law: a relational approach to justice. Int Indig Policy J. 2012;2(4):1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Ward-Griffin C, McWilliam C, Oudshoorn A. Negotiating relational practice patterns in palliative home care. J Palliat Care. 2012;28(2):97–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Warner K, Hull K, Laughlin M. The role of community in special education: a relational approach. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Webber L. A school’s journey in creating a relational environment which supports attachment and emotional security. Emot Behav Diffic. 2017;22(4):317–31.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Werder C, Thibou S, Simkins S, et al. Co-inquiry with students: when shared questions lead the way. Teach Learn Inq. 2016;4(2):21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Williams S, Nolan M, Keady J. Relational practice as the key to ensuring quality care for frail older people: discharge planning as a case example. Qual Ageing. 2009;10(3):44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Williams A, Reed H, Rees G, et al. Improving relationship–based practice, practitioner confidence and family engagement skills through restorative approach training. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;93:170–7.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Wortham S, Jackson K. Relational education: applying Gergen’s work to educational research and practice. Psychol Stud. 2012;57(2):164–71.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Gergen KJ. Relational being: beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Wright DK, Gros CP. Theory inspired practice for end-of-life cancer care: an exploration of the McGill Model of Nursing. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2012;22(3):175–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Gottlieb L, Rowat K. The McGill model of nursing: a practice-derived model. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1987;9(4):51–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198707000-00008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Wyness M, Lang P. The social and emotional dimensions of schooling: a case study in challenging the “barriers to learning.” Br Edu Res J. 2016;42(6):1041–55.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Younas A. Relational inquiry approach: nursing practice in pakistan - a case study. Nurs Sci Q. 2017;30(4):336–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Younas A. Relational inquiry approach for developing deeper awareness of patient suffering. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27(4):935–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Macpherson C. Difficulties for a practitioner preparing a family for the death of a parent: a narrative inquiry. Mortality. 2018;23(3):247–60.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol. 1982;37(2):122–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Gist ME, Schwoerer C, Rosen B. Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. J Appl Psychol. 1989;74:884–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Scourfield J, Tolman R, Maxwell N, et al. Results of a training course for social workers on engaging fathers in child protection. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2012;34:1425–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Rogers C. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Borkan J. Immersion/crystallization. In: Crabtree B, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Bourdieu P. In other words: essays towards a reflexive sociology. Bourdieu PCdE, editor. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell; 1990.

  178. Cole LL, Grubb PL, Sauter SL, et al. Psychosocial correlates of harassment, threats and fear of violence in the workplace. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(6):450–7. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.268.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Boyatzis RE, McKee A. Resonant leadership: renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Kanter RM. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books; 1977. p. 336–7.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Kanter RM. Men and women of the corporation. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Andersson LM, Pearson CM. Tit for tat? the spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad Manag Rev. 1999;24(3):452–71. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Maslach C, Leiter MP. The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997.

  184. D’Amour D, Goulet L, Labadie J-F, et al. A model and typology of collaboration between professionals in healthcare organizations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):188. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. San Martín-Rodríguez L, Beaulieu M-D, D’Amour D, et al. The determinants of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(sup1):132–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500082677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Bourdieu P, Ferguson PP. The weight of the world: social suffering in contemporary society. California: Stanford University Press; 2002.

  187. McAndrew S, Chambers M, Nolan F, et al. Measuring the evidence: reviewing the literature of the measurement of therapeutic engagement in acute mental health inpatient wards. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2014;23(3):212–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Ruch G, Turney D, Ward A, et al. Relationship-based social work : getting to the heart of practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Johnson R, Haigh R. Social psychiatry and social policy for the 21st century - new concepts for new needs: the ‘psychologically-informed environment.’ Ment Health Soc Incl. 2010;14(4):30–5. https://doi.org/10.5042/mhsi.2010.0620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Haigh R, Harrison T, Johnson R, et al. Psychologically informed environments and the “Enabling Environments” initiative. Housing, Care and Support. 2012;15(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/14608791211238412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. BBC News. Edenfield Centre: Staff sacked over abuse at Hospital. 2022. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63261476. Accessed 12 Dec 2022.

  192. Connell C, Jones E, Haslam M, et al. Mental health nursing identity: a critical analysis of the UK’s Nursing and Midwifery Council’s pre-registration syllabus change and subsequent move towards genericism. Ment Health Rev J. 2022;27(4):472–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. McKeown M, White J. The future of mental health nursing: are we barking up the wrong tree? J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2015;22(9):724–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Russo JaS A. Searching for a rose garden challenging psychiatry, Fostering Mad Studies. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would also like to acknowledge the support of our research steering group committee members made up of academics, clinicians and commissioners with an interest in this area; Dr. Rex Haigh Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nick Benefield (Independent), Dr. Lisa Wilson (Southend Psychology and Ahead for Life), Dr Sue Wheatcroft (Independent), Mick Burns (Independent), Jamie Scott (Leeds and York Partnership NHS Trust) and OPD commissioners Neil Piggin and Lindsey McGann.

Funding

This review was funded by Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Edge Hill University, Lancashire Ormskirk, UK

    Gary Lamph

  2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    Rebecca Nowland & Mick McKeown

  3. IMPlementation and Capacity Building Team (IMPaCT), Applied Health Research Hub (AHRh), University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    Paul Boland & Danielle L Christian

  4. Criminal Justice Partnership, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    Jayn Pearson

  5. Salvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

    Catriona Connell

  6. School of Psychology and Counselling, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Vanessa Jones

  7. Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS FT, Sheffield, UK

    Ellie Wildbore

  8. Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    Catherine Harris

  9. Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK

    Joanne Ramsden

  10. School of Psychology and Humanities, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    Kathryn Gardner & Nicola Graham-Kevan

Authors
  1. Gary Lamph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Nowland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Boland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jayn Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catriona Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vanessa Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ellie Wildbore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Danielle L Christian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Catherine Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Joanne Ramsden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kathryn Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nicola Graham-Kevan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Mick McKeown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed via research team meetings to the conception and design of the scoping review. GL, RN, PB, and CH contributed to the acquisition, GL, RN, PB, JP, VJ, CC, EW, DC, CH, JR, KG, NKG, and MM analysis and interpretation of the data. GL, RN, PB, and MM have drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Nowland.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was not necessary for this study as it is a scoping review of existing studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Additional file 2.

Full search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lamph, G., Nowland, R., Boland, P. et al. Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice, and social care: a scoping review. Syst Rev 12, 194 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02344-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02344-9

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053