2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10597-018-0307-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Mismatch of Paradigms Disrupts the Introduction of Psycho-Educative Interventions for Families of Persons with SMI: An Interview Study with Staff from Community Services

Abstract: Treatment and support of people diagnosed with severe mental illness in Sweden takes place in out-patient psychiatric services or municipality services. Most of the responsibility for support in daily life are provided by the close family. One crucial matter is how to support these families. This research project aimed to investigate the Swedish construction with shared responsibility between county psychiatric care and municipality social care for consumers with severe mental illness affects actions in munici… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
(50 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, all participants perceived several barriers to the professional development of PCOTS-D, such as funding, setting, mental health knowledge, clinical workload, time limitation, and expectation of tangible outcome within a short duration [ 45 , 46 ] as well as sensitive issues of mental health service (social attitude toward home visits or use of the word “depression” resulting in stigmatization) [ 47 49 ]. This issue concerns an ethical dilemma regarding the clinical interventions for mental disabilities [ 50 ] because the participants advocated for the right to depression rehabilitation and the opportunity to express the patients' need for social support; the existing negative viewpoint could be seen as the threat to working with COTS, such as resorting to secret or underhanded means or infringing on one's privacy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, all participants perceived several barriers to the professional development of PCOTS-D, such as funding, setting, mental health knowledge, clinical workload, time limitation, and expectation of tangible outcome within a short duration [ 45 , 46 ] as well as sensitive issues of mental health service (social attitude toward home visits or use of the word “depression” resulting in stigmatization) [ 47 49 ]. This issue concerns an ethical dilemma regarding the clinical interventions for mental disabilities [ 50 ] because the participants advocated for the right to depression rehabilitation and the opportunity to express the patients' need for social support; the existing negative viewpoint could be seen as the threat to working with COTS, such as resorting to secret or underhanded means or infringing on one's privacy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Position within the data CL, a PhD student, had extensive experience of working alongside mental health professionals, in both CAMHS and AMHS as well as MÖ, with an substantial experience of interviewing healthcare professionals (e.g., [5,39]) and longstanding research concerning family aspects around the person with mental illness. BW was a senior researcher in mental health and inclusivity, whose research has examined family models.…”
Section: Philosophical Underpinningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In view of the increasingly subspecialized treatment approach, the challenges with including FFP in line with national laws and regulations, it is particularly important to explore how clinicians perceive the implementation of a broader family focused approach. While there is increasing research examining clinicians’ experience when implementing other models to assist FFP, (i.e., Lets Talk), in adult mental health services ( 11 , 26 , 27 ), to the best of our knowledge, there is limited research on clinicians´ experiences with implementing TFM parallel in both adult mental health and children’s services ( 39 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%