Search

Introduction: Pharmacological interventions are viewed as central to clinical work with people diagnosed with bipolar disorder. But what is the meaning of medicine? How do clinicians view the role of medication in recovery processes in bipolar disorder? The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of experienced therapists regarding the role of medicine in the treatment of people with bipolar disorder. Methods: In a Norwegian specialist mental health care setting, we conducted 12 semi‐structured individual interviews with experienced therapists and analysed the resulting transcripts using a team‐based thematic analysis method. Findings: We identified four themes: (a) the bedrock of therapy; (b) an imperfect answer and a dangerous tool; (c) the hallmark of insight; and (d) negotiating medicine, negotiating meaning. Conclusion: We relate our findings to the shortcomings of the dominant medical model and argue that a recovery perspective can be a helpful tool for counsellors and psychotherapists in understanding the meaning of medicine for people with bipolar disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, there has been a sharp division between 'personal' and 'clinical' recovery. What role, then, might therapy play in personal recovery? To explore how female adult trauma survivors experience working towards recovery after participation in trauma-specific group therapy, we carried out semi-structured qualitative interviews with 13 clients one year after their completion of a stabilization group approach. A hermeneutic-phenomenological approach was used to analyze interview transcripts. After therapy, the participants consolidated and continued their positive processes of change. Experiences from therapy gave rise to personal recovery processes that were categorized into two main themes: "tapping into pre-therapy resources" and "using therapy-related resources." Therapy might play an important role in personal recovery through helping clients to rediscover and utilize existing resources, as well as being a source of new resources. The participants were active agents in this recovery, putting their therapies to use in the context of their daily living. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Routine outcome monitoring and clinical feedback systems (ROM/CFSs) are promising methods of providing naturalistic research data and enhancing mental health care. However, implementation in routine care is challenging, and we need more knowledge about clinicians’ and patients’ needs from such systems.Objective:We aimed to study perspectives of clinicians and patients to explore how ROM/CFS can be helpful and acceptable to them.Method:We interviewed 55 participants in focus groups and individual interviews and analyzed the data through rigorous team-based qualitative analyses.Results:We report 3 overarching domains: (a) Shared needs, (b) Specific patient needs, and (c) Specific therapist needs. Shared needs, in which perspectives of different stakeholders converge, was the dominant domain in the material. Under each domain, we report 3 specific themes: (a1) Degree of trust in therapy, (a2) Allowing for openness, (a3) Monitoring joint objectives; (b1) Life functioning, (b2) Canary in the coal mine, (b3) Holistic report; and (c1) Emotional presence and style, (c2) Monitoring risk and symptoms, and (c3) Agency and ownership of process.Conclusions:In what should increase our confidence toward core aspects of ROM, we suggest that an integration of relational feedback concepts and stringent clinical dimension tracking into the ROM/CFS can be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We conducted a study to explore how people diagnosed with first-episode psychosis experienced their contact with early intervention services for psychosis and the way these experiences relate to their recovery processes. Our aim was to integrate and describe the service users’ experiences in a rigorous and comprehensive way. A broad literature search was performed in June and July 2016. After screening, 17 qualitative studies were included. We analyzed the findings in two main steps: (a) translating studies into one another and (b) synthesizing the findings from the studies. Through these interpretative processes, we found five new and overarching themes: (a) something is wrong, (b) do for myself, (c) it’s about people, (d) a price to pay, and (e) ongoing vulnerability. We describe these themes as a process that service users’ maneuver through in their contact with the services. Our findings are discussed in light of relevant research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:While there is accumulating evidence for clinical recovery in a significant proportion of people experiencing a first episode psychosis, the mechanisms facilitating this form of recovery are less well known. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate mechanisms of recovery after a first-episode psychosis as perceived by clinically recovered service users. Methods:Thematic analytic approach within an interpretative–phenomenological framework. Twenty clinically recovered service users were interviewed. Analysis followed an established meaning condensation procedure. Results:Main theme:Establishment of subjective self-agency. Subordinate themes: (1)Environmental support and gentle pressure, (2)Individually tailored assistance, (3)Antipsychotic medication: relinquishing personal responsibility, and considerable side effects. Conclusions:We suggest that an increase in sense of personal agency is a core mechanism driving recovery for participants in the study sample. Findings indicate that interventions aiming to boost subjective and behavioral agency in service users might be of great benefit, particularly in combating negative symptoms of psychosis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]