The quest for choice and the need for relational care in mental health work

Abstract

Since the revolutionary mood of the 1960s, patient-centered mental health care and a research emphasis on service users as experts by experience have emerged hand in hand with a view of service users as consumers. What happens to knowledge derived from firsthand experience when mental health users become experts and actively choose care? What kind of perspective do service users pursue on psychological distress? These are important questions in a field where psychiatric expertise on mental illness is socially structured and constrained as an intra-personal disturbance of the mind. We argue that experience experts have lost a coherent perspective on care and health. We illustrate this by rationally reconstructing how the interpersonal view of mental health first gained and then lost coherence between the conception of mental health, the practice of mental health care, and the user experience. Harry Stack Sullivan’s interpersonal theory was a paradigm case for such coherence. The inclusion of mental health consumers as ‘experts by experience’ in the mental health field took place at the cost of Sullivan’s coherent interpersonal theory. Service users who interact side by side with medical experts as experience experts are constrained by the evidence-based imperative and consumerism. Service users are caught up in a race among experts to gain knowledge about mental problems from a third-person perspective instead of from first-person experience. To make a contribution service users have more to gain from a research approach that appreciates that they are persons among persons rather than experts among experts.

Exploring the safe environment provided by nurses in inpatient psychiatric wards: A mixed‐methods study

“…Therapeutic communication is essential to meet the physical and psychological needs of the patient while establishing a trusting relationship between healthcare professionals and patients. Increasing meaningful relationships in inpatient psychiatric wards can provide a safe environment (Baklien & Bongaardt, 2014).…”

Co-Production is Good, but Other Things are Good Too

“…In some places, service user involvement and ‘co-production’ mean one and the same thing. In others, ‘co-production’ contrasts with ‘mere’ service-user involvement, on the grounds that you can truthfully say you are ‘involving’ someone while in fact giving them a very marginal role, thereby confirming their subordinate status in a knowledge or power hierarchy (Baklien and Bongaardt, 2014; Voronka, 2016). In such contexts, ‘co-production’ is a kind of gold standard, where clinicians and service-users are equal partners.…”

‘Such a white thing to do’: A discourse analysis of CAMH’s Coping with COVID-19 Campaign

“…With intentions to normalize madness (Baklien & Bongaardt, 2014) and position distress as a response to social conditions (LeFrançois, Menzies & Reaume, 2013), antipsychiatry exists to resist psychiatry's diagnostic frameworks and legacy of dehumanizing violence (Joseph, 2015). The foundational work of Erving Goffman and R.D.…”