社工人員、教保人員與家長對早期療育到宅服務觀點之探討

The Perspectives of Social Workers, Early Childhood Teachers and Caregivers of Children with Developmental Delay on Home-Based Services

林雅容(Ya-Jung Lin)

發展遲緩兒童 ； 早期療育 ； 到宅服務 ； 支持性服務 ； children with developmental delays ； early intervention ； home-based services ； supportive service

幼兒教育年刊

27期（2016 / 11 / 01）

47 - 67

繁體中文

本文以社工及教保人員、兒童的主要照顧者為研究對象，目的為呈現服務提供者和服務使用者對於到宅服務的觀點。研究者以質性研究之深度訪談蒐集資料。研究結果發現：一、社工及教保視服務用意為，增強兒童接受療育的穩定性及提升家長能力，然而社工以簡明話語向家長說明此項服務，使得多數家長視服務以兒童為重心。二、社工於到宅服務的任務包含家庭經濟及問題因應、服務協調；教保的任務有教導兒童、促進家長參與療育，以及將家庭近況轉知社工。三、並非所有的家長落實「參與療育」此項職責。忙於生計及家務的家長僅能儘量地配合專業人員的要求。四、此項服務有助於家長為兒童銜接其他療育服務及因應家庭問題，但是家庭資源是影響因素。研究者依據研究結果對於實務工作者提出相關建議。

This study explored the perspectives of service providers and service users on home-based services for children with developmental delay. Data were collected by in-depth interview. And social workers, early childhood teachers and parent of children with special needs were as interviewee. The results of this study indicate (1) the purposes of home-based services for professionals were to promote parenting ability and stability of resource-using. Most social workers introduced these services in simple words to families. Therefore, parents were under the impression that child development was the prime focus of these services. (2) The tasks of social workers were to apply aids for families, to solve family problems and to promote service coordination. The tasks of early childhood teachers were to promote the ability of children and to transmit the family conditions to social workers. Due to job-loading, professionals could not respond family problems timely. (3) Not all parents took ＂participating intervention services＂ as their main tasks. Parents, suffered in financial risks and undertook household duties, cooperated to professionals' requests as far as possible. (4) Children could engage with other services and family could cope their own problems at the end of services. Meanwhile, family resources were the important factor on the service effectiveness. Finally, this study provided some implications for future clinic works.

1. 林雅容(2012)。從服務協調觀點初探資源貧瘠地區發展遲緩兒童到宅服務。身心障礙研究，10(3)，211-225。
   連結：
2. 柯秋雪(2009)。早期療育到宅服務實施之研究─以臺北縣為例。特殊教育研究學刊，34(3)，1-24。
   連結：
3. 臺北市政府社會局（2005）。臺北市政府社會局施政報告。2005 年9 月13日，取自http://oa.lib.ksu.edu.tw/OA/bitstream/987654321/58168/2/ 94 年8 月臺北市政府社會局施政報告.pdf
4. 衛生福利部（2014）。發展遲緩兒童到宅服務實施計畫。
5. 立法院（2006）。立法院第6 屆第3 會期衛生環境及社會福利委員會第24次全體委員會議紀錄。立法院公報，95(34)，276-312。
6. Allen, S. F.,Tracy, E. M.(2008).Developing student knowledge and skills for home-based social work practice.Journal of Social Work Education,44(1),125-143.
7. Azzi-Lessing, L.(2011).Home visitation programs: Critical issues and future directions.Early Childhood Research Quarterly,26,387-398.
8. Brookes, S. J.,Summers, J. A.,Thornburg, K. R.,Ispa, J. M.,Lane, V. J.(2006).Building successful home visitor-mother relationships and reaching program goals in two early head start programs: A qualitative look at contributing factors.Early Childhood Research Quarterly,21,25-45.
9. Brorson, K.(2005).The culture of a home visit in early intervention.Journal of Early Childhood Research,3(1),51-76.
10. Caldera, D.,Burrell, L.,Rodriguez, K.,Crowne, S.,Rohde, C.,Duggan, A.(2007).Impact of a statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child health and development.Child Abuse& Neglectl,31,829-52.
11. Diaz, J.,Oshana, D., Harding, K.(2004).Healthy Families America: 2003 Annual profile of program sites.Chicago, Il:National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research.
12. Hebbeler, K. M.,Gerlach-Downie, S. G.(2002).Inside the black box of home visiting: a qualitative analysis of why intended outcomes were not achieved.Early Childhood Research Quarterly,17,28-51.
13. Kadushin, A.,Martin, J. A.(1998).Child welfare service.New York, NY:McMillan.
14. Knox, J.(1996).Homebased services for Southeast Asian refugee children: A process and formative evaluation.Children and Youth Services Review,18(6),553-578.
15. Lin, M.,Bates, A.(2010).Home visits: How do they affect teachers' beliefs about teaching and diversity?.Early Childhood Education Journal,38(3),179-185.
16. McBride, S. L.,Peterson, C.(1997).Home-based early intervention with families of children with disabilities: Who is doing what?.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,17(2),209-233.
17. Sar, B. K.,Antle, B. F.,Bledsoe, L. K.,Barbee, A. P.,Zyl, M. A. V.(2010).The importance of expanding home visitation services to include strengthening family relationships for the benefit of children.Children and Youth Services Review,32,198-205.
18. Sharma, N.,Lalinde, P. S.,Brosco, J. P.(2006).What do residents learn by meeting with families of children with disabilities? A qualitative analysis of an experiential learning module.Pediatric Rehabilitation,9(3),185-189.
19. Xu, Y.(2008).Developing meaningful IFSP outcomes through a family-centered approach using the double ABCX model.Young Exceptional Children,12(1),2-19.
20. 王銀絲(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。樹德科技大學幼兒保育學系。
21. 朱鳳英(2007)。臺北市早期療育服務社區照顧經驗。護理雜誌，54(5)，18-23。
22. 林惠芳、林幸君(2003)。我國在宅服務現況檢視與實施方案初步共識。發展遲緩兒童到宅服務模式實務交流研討會手冊，臺北:
23. 林雅惠(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。東吳大學社會工作研究所。
24. 柯秋雪(2008)。美國早期療育到宅服務之發展概述。國小特殊教育，46，44-53。
25. 郭煌宗(2002)。東台灣胎兒酒精症候群及胎兒酒精效應兒童到宅早期介入成效評估。兒童福利期刊，2，103-128。
26. 陳蓁蓁、蕭珮如、陳汝珍、劉士伶(2012)。到宅親職示範服務對發展遲緩兒童居家照顧者親職能力提昇之初探。第十屆國際早期療育論文發表大會，台中:
27. 廖雅芳(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄醫學大學神經學科研究所。

1. 葉湘郁,吳佩穎,王天祥(2021)。寄養服務與早期療育：南高雄家扶中心寄養家庭參與早期療育經驗之探究。社會工作實務與研究學刊，10，27+29+31-71+73。
2. (2021)。從 0~6 歲特殊需求幼兒家庭需求調查回應早期療育服務現況與困境。東臺灣特殊教育學報，24，1-29。
3. (2022)。從「去社區工作」到「與社區一起工作」－在新北市貢寮和雙溪開展早期療育服務之經驗回顧。社區發展季刊，179，80-92。
4. (2024)。專業合作與倫理議題—早期療育到宅服務的案例討論。社區發展季刊，187，308-318。