No abstract

This discussion paper reviews and critiques literature related to the evolution of the medical humanities as an academic discipline and its contribution to healthcare provision. We argue that despite considerable advances in the field of medical humanities, needs have been identified for a more inclusive, outward-facing and applied discipline. These needs can be met in the form of what we have called the health humanities, which both embrace interdisciplinarity and engage with the contributions of those marginalised from the medical humanities -for example, allied health professionals, nurses, patients and carers. It is argued that there is a need for new thinking to develop the discipline of health humanities, to develop, provide and share research, expertise, training and education.

BackgroundTrial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized controlled trials published in key nursing journals that met criteria for timely registration.MethodsWe reviewed all RCTs published in three (two general, one mental health) nursing journals between August 2011 and September 2016. We classified the included trials as: 1. Not registered, 2. Registered but not reported in manuscript, 3. Registered retrospectively, 4. Registered prospectively (before the recruitment of the first subject into the trial). 5. Timely registration (as 4 but the trial identification number is reported in abstract).ResultsWe identified 135 trials published in the three included journals. The majority (n = 78, 58%) were not registered. Thirty-three (24%) were retrospectively registered. Of the 24 (18%) trials that were prospectively registered, 11 (8%) met the criteria for timely registration.ConclusionsThere is an unacceptable difference in rates of trial registration between leading medical and nursing journals. Concerted effort is required by nurse researchers, reviewers and journal editors to ensure that all trials are registered in a timely way.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0036-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

This paper seeks to think creatively about the body of research which claims there is a link between heavy metal music and adolescent alienation, self-destructive behaviours, selfharm and suicide. Such research has been criticised, often by people who belong to heavy metal subcultures, as systematically neglecting to explore, in a meaningful manner, the psychosocial benefits for individuals who both listen to contemporary heavy metal music and socialize in associated groups. We argue that notions of survival, strength, community, and rebellion are key themes in contemporary heavy metal music. Through literary-lyrical analysis of a selection of heavy metal tracks, this paper aims to redress the balance of risk and benefit. We argue that listening to this type of music, the accompanying social relationships, sense of solidarity and even the type of dancing can ameliorate tumultuous and difficult emotions. Songs which could be read as negative can induce feelings of relief through the sense that someone else has felt a particular way and recovered enough to transform these emotions into a creative outlet. This genre of music may therefore not increase the risk of untoward outcomes in any simple sense but rather represent a valuable resource for young people in difficulty.Keywords Self-harm . Suicide . Heavy metal music . Subcultures . Adolescence . Alienation This paper sets out to address the oft-cited relationship between heavy metal music and adolescent self-harm. Whilst frequently assumed, this alleged relationship originates in stereotypes held by parents, educators, policymakers and researchers and is often only tenuously supported by study of young people themselves. As Martin Barker (1984) has pointed out, each generation of new media has been interpreted by many social commentators as being potentially harmful and apt to have a particularly pernicious effect on children. The rise of mass literacy in the 19 th century was accompanied by concerns about the effects of 'penny dreadfuls', cinema yielded concerns about potential delinquency and deteriorations in young J Med Humanit

No abstract

Psychiatry studies the human mind within a medical paradigm, exploring experience, response and reaction, emotion and affect. Similarly, writers of fiction explore within a non-clinical dimension the phenomena of the human mind. The synergism between literature and psychiatry seems clear, yet literature--and in particular, fiction--remain the poor relation of the medical textbook. How can literature be of particular relevance in psychiatry? This paper examines these issues and suggests a selection of useful texts.

The 'multicultural clinical interaction' presents itself as a dilemma for the mental health practitioner. Literature describes two problematic areas where this issues emerges--how to make an adequate distinction between religious rituals and the rituals that may be symptomatic of 'obsessive compulsive disorder' (OCD), and how to differentiate 'normative' religious or spiritual beliefs, behaviours, and experiences from 'psychotic' illnesses. When it comes to understanding service user's 'idioms of distress', beliefs about how culture influences behaviour can create considerable confusion and 'normative uncertainty' for mental health practitioners. In the absence of clear diagnostic and assessment criteria on distinguishing between 'culture' and 'psychopathology', practitioners have had to rely on their own intuition and seek out possible 'strategies' or 'procedures' from a contradictory and cross-disciplinary evidence base. Decontextualisation of service users' experiences may result in the pathologisation of culturally 'normative' phenomenon, 'category fallacy' errors, and poor health care experiences and outcomes for service users.This paper situates this dilemma within a wider debate that has concerned both the biomedical and social sciences, namely, the unresolved question of 'normality' or 'abnormality'. Indeed, issues that arise from dilemmas surrounding the question of 'culture' or 'psychopathology' are intimately tied to wider cultural ideas about what is considered 'normal'. The disciplines of psychiatry, psychology, and medical anthropology have struggled to establish workable criteria against which to judge behaviour as 'normal', 'abnormal', or 'pathological'. Three models for understanding mental 'abnormality' are evident in 'transcultural psychiatry' (what is now commonly known as 'cultural psychiatry'), and these models have corresponded closely to the interpretive models used by anthropologists attempting to make sense of the apparent diversity of human societies. The three models of 'absolutism', 'universalism' and 'cultural relativism' have not only important consequences for the nature and conduct of research enquiry, but also have implications for how the dilemma of 'culture' or 'psychopathology' is attended to in clinical practice.