76 Chapter 3 Figure 4. Evaluation scores, per professional discipline, after the series In the evaluation of the series, when asked how they valued their overall experience with MCD, the group of CR appeared to be the lowest scoring discipline (5.4/10) and MM the highest (7.3/10). Regarding the organizational conditions, we noticed a negative evaluation by CR, both in the frequency and duration of the MCD sessions (resp. 45% and 78%). In the evaluations per single MCD session, the item about how participants rate the case discussion to be worthwhile showed significant differences, where MM, MT, and HP are the most positive disciplines (4.4/5) and SG and CR the least positive (3.9/5), yet still positive. A significant difference is seen in the item scored by participants regarding their interest in MCD; CR again scored lowest with 3.7/5, and HP and MT scored highest with 4.5/5. In the scores about the dialogical skills of participants, the facilitators showed significant differences per discipline, with lower scores for SG and CR and highest for HP and MM. The item about asking each other open-ended questions, showed one of the few negative scores, with scores of 2.1/5 for CR, 2.3/5 for SG, to the highest score 3.4/5 for HP. In many items, CR staff appears to be the least positive. Based on interviews with CR staff members, we know how these case managers of the re-integration services often mentioned high work pressure. They explained that during the project, some CR-teams had shortages of staff, which affected their work, and inducting new staff costed time. Hence, it made the CR-staff feel that they did not have enough space for MCD sessions, and MCD was not high on their list of priorities: ‘we have other important things to do’.