Search

Background. Childhood adversity has been associated with onset of psychosis in adulthood but these studies have used only general definitions of this environmental risk indicator. Therefore, we sought to explore the prevalence of more specific adverse childhood experiences amongst those with and without psychotic disorders using detailed assessments in a large epidemiological case-control sample (AESOP). Method. Data were collected on 182 first-presentation psychosis cases and 246 geographically matched controls in two UK centres. Information relating to the timing and frequency of exposure to different types of childhood adversity (neglect, antipathy, physical and sexual abuse, local authority care, disrupted living arrangements and lack of supportive figure) was obtained using the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire. Results. Psychosis cases were three times more likely to report severe physical abuse from the mother that commenced prior to 12 years of age, even after adjustment for other significant forms of adversity and demographic confounders. A non-significant trend was also evident for greater prevalence of reported severe maternal antipathy amongst those with psychosis. Associations with maternal neglect and childhood sexual abuse disappeared after adjusting for maternal physical abuse and antipathy. Paternal maltreatment and other forms of adversity were not associated with psychosis nor was there evidence of a dose--response effect. Conclusions. These findings suggest that only specific adverse childhood experiences are associated with psychotic disorders and only in a minority of cases. If replicated, this greater precision will ensure that research into the mechanisms underlying the pathway from childhood adversity to psychosis is more fruitful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article recounts the methodological story of a qualitative research project that investigated the work of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain and the news media's deconstruction of the Commission's report - the Parekh Report - which was published on 11 October 2000. Our project1 used a multi-method fieldwork approach, combining textual analysis of news media coverage and the extensive documentary archives of the Commission, along with semi-structured interviews with Commissioners and other figures involved in the publication of the Report. The article attempts to offer a reflexive account of the experiences of interviewing a particular public policy-making elite and examines how a particular 'public trauma' - that is, the damaging political fall-out of extremely negative news media coverage of the Parekh Report - inflected our research encounters. We argue that the openness with which many of the participants spoke about this traumatic experience suggests that the production of policy documents can constitute highly emotional labour for participants. We extend this argument by examining how this openness also reveals the instabilities and uncertainties of power within the research interviewee/interviewer relationship. In this way the article seeks to contribute to debates about the problems of defining the category 'elites' in both public policy and social research worlds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand those factors which facilitate or hinder resolution of Mental Health Crises in order to inform future development of Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment (CRHT) Teams. Method & Design: Qualitative Interview study conducted by service users trained in research techniques. Home based interviews were conducted with 36 randomly selected patients who had used the services of one of nine CRHT teams across the East Midlands, United Kingdom, which serves a catchment population of 1.2 million people during a two week census period in October 2007. Results: Participants reported different levels of satisfaction with the treatment and professional responses they received. We identified three themes leading to successful resolution of mental health crises: being enabled to feel safe, to feel accepted and to feel understood. Participants did not identify specific treatment interventions such as medication or formal psychotherapy as important contributors to recovery. Unhelpful experiences included professional responses which resulted in participants feeling misunderstood or ignored, unsafe, vulnerable or anxious, or that they were being judged. Conclusion: The quality of relationship between the patient and members of the CRHT team is critical to any therapeutic effect. Therapeutic effect is optimum when it is based upon an adult to adult relationship which can provide a holding function allowing the service user to feel safe, accepted and understood while the crisis resolves. These findings have important implications for commissioning and managing such teams, and theoretical implications for medical practice morewidely. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]