Misconceptions about brain injury among the general public and non-expert health professionals: an exploratory study

With the burgeoning use of qualitative methods in health research, criteria for judging their value become increasingly necessary.Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is a distinctive approach to conducting qualitative research being used with increasing frequency in published studies. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify published papers in the area of health psychology employing IPA. A total of fifty-two articles are reviewed here in terms of the following: methods of data collection, sampling, assessing wider applicability of research and adherence to the theoretical foundations and procedures of IPA.IPA seems applicable and useful in a wide variety of research topics. The lack of attention sometimes afforded to the interpretative facet of the approach is discussed. KEYWORDS:interpretative phenomenological analysis; health psychology; qualitative methodology 3 WHAT IS INTERPRETATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS (IPA)?Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) has been developed as a distinctive approach to conducting qualitative research in psychology offering a theoretical foundation and a detailed procedural guide. As such, it has been utilised in a burgeoning number of published studies (Chapman & Smith, 2002). The intellectual origins of IPA and the history of its development as a new technique for qualitative health psychology are beyond the scope of this article. The interested reader is referred to Smith (1996) and Smith, Flowers and Osborn (1997) for an exploration of the historical and theoretical foundations to the approach. It is sufficient to note here that the approach has its origins in those fields of inquiry, such as phenomenology and symbolic interactionism, which hold that human beings are not passive perceivers of an objective reality, but rather that they come to interpret and understand their world by formulating their own biographical stories into a form that makes sense to them. The aim of IPA is to explore in detail the processes through which participants make sense of their own experiences, by looking at the respondent"s account of the processes they have been through and seeking to utilise an assumed existing universal inclination towards self-reflection (Chapman & Smith, 2002;Smith et al., 1997). Thus, IPA research has tended to focus on the exploration of participants" experience, understandings, perceptions and views 4 (Reid, Flowers & Larkin, 2005). The "processes" referred to here include all these aspects of self-reflection, and refer to the way in which IPA assumes that participants seek to interpret their experiences into some form that is understandable to them.IPA is phenomenological in that it is concerned with individuals" subjective reports rather than the formulation of objective accounts (e.g. Flowers, Hart & Marriott 1999), and it recognises that research is a dynamic process (Smith, 1996). Whilst the researcher attempts to access "the participant"s personal world" (page 218) insofar as this is feasible, IPA acknowledges that "...

show abstract

“…44. Swift and Wilson (2001) An exploration of misconceptions about brain injury, as perceived by those with experience of brain injury.…”

Section: Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology

Brocki

Wearden

2006

Psychology & Health

903

736

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Qualitative investigations have further revealed that the complexity of behavioural and cognitive sequelae are poorly understood 31 and that members of the public tend to rely on outward indications of trauma to identify the presence of brain injury 27 . Such beliefs have also been shown to exist among friends and relatives 26 , and perhaps surprisingly, among members of the healthcare profession 24,8 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is likely that such misconceptions lead to negative perceptions of survivors of brain injury 32,33 and may result in prejudice and discrimination 34,35. Much of the above literature suggests the influence of diverse factors in explaining how the public and healthcare professionals perceive survivors of brain injury. These have included gender, age, injury severity 30 , experience 24 , education 32 , and knowledge 34,31 to name a few.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educational professionals’ understanding of childhood traumatic brain injury

Linden¹,

Braiden²,

Miller³

2012

Brain Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Published reference: Linden, M.A., Braiden, HJ., and Miller, S. (2013). Educational professionals understanding of childhood traumatic brain injury. Brain injury, 27(1): [92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102] Educational professionals' understanding of childhood traumatic brain injury. AbstractPrimary objectives: To determine the understanding of educational professionals around the topic of childhood brain injury, and explore the factor structure of the Common Misconceptions about Traumatic Brain Injury Questionnaire (CM-TBI).Research design: Cross sectional postal survey. Methods and procedures:The CM-TBI was posted to all educational establishments in one region of the United Kingdom. One representative from each school was asked to complete and return the questionnaire (N = 388). Main outcomes and results:Differences were demonstrated between those participants who knew someone with a brain injury and those who did not, with a similar pattern being shown for those educators who had taught a child with brain injury. Participants who had taught a child with brain injury demonstrated greater knowledge in areas such as seatbelts/prevention, brain damage, brain injury sequelae, amnesia, recovery, and rehabilitation. Principal components analysis suggested the existence of four factors and the discarding of half the original items of the questionnaire. Conclusions:In the first European study to explore this issue, we highlight that teachers are ill prepared to cope with children who have sustained a brain injury. Given the importance of 2 a supportive school environment in return to life following hospitalisation, the lack of understanding demonstrated by teachers in this research may significantly impact on a successful return to school.

show abstract

“…[7] TBIs therefore merit adequate understanding by the general public, as well as healthcare professionals. However, despite the prevalence of TBIs and the consequences associated with them, a lack of knowledge and misconceptions about brain injuries appear to be common among family members and healthcare professionals involved in the care of individuals with TBIs, [8] and even among people with personal experience with TBIs. [9] The general public are not always informed about or do not always understand the physical, behavioural, cognitive and psychosocial consequences of TBIs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Misconceptions about traumatic brain injuries among South African university students

Pretorius

Broodryk

2013

S. Afr. J. Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To investigate the incidence and type of misconceptions about traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) harboured by university students. Method. A convenience sample of 705 university students were recruited and data were collected using an electronic survey. The link to the survey was sent via e-mail to all registered students at Stellenbosch University. The participants had to complete the Common Misconceptions about Traumatic Brain Injury (CM-TBI) questionnaire. Results. The findings of this study suggest that the students subscribe to misconceptions from each of the 7 categories of misconceptions about TBIs. The mean percentages of misconceptions about TBIs were calculated and the amnesia (mean 49.7%) and unconsciousness (mean 46.1%) categories were identified as the categories about which the respondents had the most misconceptions, while the mean percentages of misconceptions were lower for the categories of recovery (mean 27.6%), rehabilitation (mean 26.56%), prevention (mean 20.8%), brain injury sequelae (mean 18.7%) and brain damage (mean 8.4%). Conclusion. Generally, these findings appear to be in keeping with previous literature, which suggests that misconceptions about TBIs are common among the general population. This study's identification of these misconceptions could help create awareness, provide a focus for information provision, and contribute to the development of educational intervention programmes tailored for the South African context.

show abstract

Misconceptions about brain injury among the general public and non-expert health professionals: an exploratory study

Cited by 126 publications

References 16 publications

A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology

A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology

Educational professionals’ understanding of childhood traumatic brain injury

Misconceptions about traumatic brain injuries among South African university students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About