Search

Over the past three decades, "lived experience" designated roles in mental health services in Australia have increased. However, the lived experience of staff in roles not designated in this way is often hidden or unacknowledged. This qualitative study included 33 participants employed in a range of roles at two Victorian mental health services, including 10 social workers. Interviews explored staff perspectives regarding the sharing of lived experience by staff with colleagues and supervisors. Concept analysis identified conflicting ways of thinking about lived experience, which influenced when and how staff shared and how they responded to sharing by other staff. These findings suggest the need to explicitly address the purpose and value of sharing lived experience in the mental health workplace, to better support staff and service users. Recommendations for social workers and their colleagues, working at all levels of the mental health system, are provided. IMPLICATIONS The perspectives and experiences of mental health service staff suggest room for improvement in the valuing and inclusion of staff with lived experience, which may have benefits for service-user experiences of support. Promoting the value of sharing lived experience to reflective-practice and service reform is consistent with core social work values and, thus, the responsibility of all social workers, supervisors, and educators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental health research, policy, and service provision over the last 50 years have constructed families and their connections with mental illness in various and contradictory ways. Three distinct but intersecting perspectives derive from the clinical mental illness literature, the family advocacy movement, and mental health policy. Within the clinical literature, the perspective of families is largely one of blame and pathology. By contrast, the family advocacy movement has generated the perspective of the burdened family, whereas mental health policy has created the perspective of the obligated caregiver. The result is an ambiguous understanding of the role of the family in both contributing and responding to mental illness. Implications for policy and practice include the need for a commitment to the principles of partnership with families, a recognition of diversity within families, recognising the difference between carer and family positions, and a need for policy to reflect the position of family as both intimately concerned, but not necessarily responsible, for patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]