Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Conceptualising and Working with ‘Psychosis’ in Assertive Outreach Teams: A Grounded Theory Study

By Claire Rebecca Broomhead

Abstract

Part One: Literature Review -\ud \ud Purpose: To determine current opinions amongst mental health professionals regarding the aetiology of ‘schizophrenia’ \ud Method: Literature searches were conducted using online databases. Search terms included: schizophrenia, psychosis, cause, etiology, aetiology, beliefs, causal, explanatory models, conceptual models, causal beliefs, psychologists, nurses, psychiatrists, staff, professionals, workers. \ud Results: Thirteen relevant studies were identified: 11 cross-sectional surveys, 1 quasi-experimental design, 1 peer-professional autobiographical account. \ud Conclusions: The majority of health professionals favoured biological aetiology. Aetiological beliefs are related to preferred management strategies. Biological aetiological beliefs are amenable to change through the use of a training programme. \ud \ud Part Two: Research Report -\ud \ud Objectives: To explore 1) What understanding staff members have of possible causes of clients’ unusual experiences and distress? 2) What approach do staff members take in promoting recovery and how is this related to their construction of ‘psychosis’? 3) How are differences in opinions about treatment and recovery negotiated between clients and staff or between the individual staff member and the team? \ud Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight mental health professionals working in four separate Assertive Outreach teams, spanning two regions of the East Midlands. Interview data was analysed using grounded theory methodology. \ud Results: A model was developed based on two continuums between the core categories of ‘expert position’, ‘being with’ and ‘dependence’, ‘independence’. Four contributory categories ‘conceptualisation of mental health difficulties’, ‘focus of recovery’, ‘risk and responsibility’ and ‘team/organizational factors’ influence the position that professionals. \ud Conclusions: Professionals’ approaches to understanding and working with people experiencing mental distress are context-dependent. Biomedical conceptualisation tends to be associated more frequently with the ‘Expert Position’, but other factors such as risk and resource limitations can also move professionals towards this way of working. \ud \ud Part Three: Critical Appraisal - \ud This is a reflective account of the research process and some of the challenges encountered

Publisher: University of Leicester
Year: 2011
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/10116

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2009). A pilot study investigating the use of psychological formulations to modify psychiatric staff perceptions of service users with psychosis. doi
  2. (2006). Assertive Outreach: Policy and Reality.
  3. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. doi
  4. (1999). Do families cause “schizophrenia”? Revisiting a taboo subject. In
  5. (2009). Doctoring the Mind. doi
  6. (1994). DSM-IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder., doi
  7. (2002). Explanatory models for mental distress: implications for clinical practice and research. doi
  8. (2004). Explanatory models of illness in schizophrenia: comparison of four ethnic groups. doi
  9. (2003). Five-year experience of first-episode nonaffective psychosis in open-dialogue approach: Treatment principles, follow-up outcomes and two case studies. doi
  10. (2007). Humanising Psychiatry and Mental Health Care. doi
  11. (2000). Mental health nurses’ beliefs about interventions for schizophrenia and depression: a comparison with psychiatrists and the public. Australian and New Zealand doi
  12. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. doi
  13. (2001). Open dialogue in psychosis I: An introduction and case illustration. doi
  14. (1998). Patient satisfaction: ethnic origin or explanatory model?. doi
  15. (2000). Recent advances in understanding mental illness and psychotic experiences,
  16. (2009). Schizophrenia Guidelines (Retrieved 24th
  17. (1994). Schizophrenia: the views of a sample of psychiatrists. doi
  18. (2008). Societal predictors of psychotic experiences: Specificity and psychological mechanisms. doi
  19. (2008). The Myth of the Chemical Cure. Hampshire: doi
  20. (2002). Working in Partnership with Parents: The Parent Advisor Model.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.