Peer specialists and mental health nurses who work with patients who are suicidal: A comparative interview study

IF 3.1 Q1 NURSING
Diana D. Van Bergen, Tove Henseler
{"title":"Peer specialists and mental health nurses who work with patients who are suicidal: A comparative interview study","authors":"Diana D. Van Bergen,&nbsp;Tove Henseler","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In the field suicide prevention, knowledge about the involvement and approaches of peer specialists is scarce, prompting an examination of their potential unique contributions compared to what mental health nurses offer.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We compared perspectives of peer specialists, mental health nurses, and patients with suicidal thoughts) on: 1) ‘causes’ of suicidality, 2) essential skills, insights, and interactions in working with patients who feel suicidal; and 3) beneficial approaches for reducing suicidality.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Qualitative interviews with three types of informants were analysed thematically using the Constant Comparative Method. The samples, all from the Netherlands, consisted of 19 peer specialists with a history of suicidality, 18 mental health care nurses, and seven patients with suicidality who had been in contact with both peer specialists and mental health nurses.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All three groups viewed suicidality as a prolonged process driven by problematic situations and thoughts, primarily to escape life rather than die. All groups found the following important: suicide literacy (i.e., knowing what it means to be suicidal and what is optimal suicide care), empathy, and understanding. Patients, however, felt peer specialists showed greater unconditional empathy than nurses, likely because nurses focused on risk assessment and safety. Patients also found peer specialists more convincing in promoting recovery from suicidality than nurses, with their lived experiences serving as powerful examples.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both mental health care nurses and peer specialists articulated suicide literacy and understood the relevance of empathy and genuine listening in caring for patients who feel suicidal. Nevertheless, in practice, nurses are less often experienced as empathic by patients and do not always abide by shared decision making (due to prioritising risk- and safety assessment). Through their own previous suicidal crises, peer specialists are unique in their ability to break down hierarchical barriers with authentic empathetic support.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34476,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100285"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11743879/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X24001127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In the field suicide prevention, knowledge about the involvement and approaches of peer specialists is scarce, prompting an examination of their potential unique contributions compared to what mental health nurses offer.

Objectives

We compared perspectives of peer specialists, mental health nurses, and patients with suicidal thoughts) on: 1) ‘causes’ of suicidality, 2) essential skills, insights, and interactions in working with patients who feel suicidal; and 3) beneficial approaches for reducing suicidality.

Design

Qualitative interviews with three types of informants were analysed thematically using the Constant Comparative Method. The samples, all from the Netherlands, consisted of 19 peer specialists with a history of suicidality, 18 mental health care nurses, and seven patients with suicidality who had been in contact with both peer specialists and mental health nurses.

Results

All three groups viewed suicidality as a prolonged process driven by problematic situations and thoughts, primarily to escape life rather than die. All groups found the following important: suicide literacy (i.e., knowing what it means to be suicidal and what is optimal suicide care), empathy, and understanding. Patients, however, felt peer specialists showed greater unconditional empathy than nurses, likely because nurses focused on risk assessment and safety. Patients also found peer specialists more convincing in promoting recovery from suicidality than nurses, with their lived experiences serving as powerful examples.

Conclusion

Both mental health care nurses and peer specialists articulated suicide literacy and understood the relevance of empathy and genuine listening in caring for patients who feel suicidal. Nevertheless, in practice, nurses are less often experienced as empathic by patients and do not always abide by shared decision making (due to prioritising risk- and safety assessment). Through their own previous suicidal crises, peer specialists are unique in their ability to break down hierarchical barriers with authentic empathetic support.
与有自杀倾向的病人一起工作的同伴专家和精神健康护士:一项比较访谈研究。
背景:在自杀预防领域,关于同伴专家的参与和方法的知识是稀缺的,这促使人们对他们与精神卫生护士相比潜在的独特贡献进行了研究。目的:我们比较同伴专家、心理健康护士和有自杀念头的患者的观点:自杀的“原因”;2)与有自杀倾向的患者一起工作时的基本技能、见解和互动;3)减少自杀的有益途径。设计:采用恒定比较法对三种类型的举报人进行定性访谈。这些样本全部来自荷兰,包括19名有自杀史的同伴专家、18名精神卫生保健护士和7名与同伴专家和精神卫生护士都有接触的有自杀倾向的患者。结果:所有三组人都认为自杀是一个由问题情境和想法驱动的漫长过程,主要是为了逃避生活而不是死亡。所有小组都认为以下几点很重要:自杀素养(即,知道自杀意味着什么,什么是最佳的自杀护理)、同理心和理解。然而,患者觉得同行专家比护士表现出更多的无条件同理心,这可能是因为护士更关注风险评估和安全。患者还发现,同行专家在促进从自杀中恢复方面比护士更有说服力,他们的生活经历就是有力的例子。结论:心理健康护理护士和同伴专家都明确表达了自杀素养,并理解同情和真诚倾听在照顾有自杀倾向的患者中的重要性。然而,在实践中,护士对患者的同理心较少,并不总是遵守共同的决策(由于优先考虑风险和安全评估)。通过他们自己以前的自杀危机,同伴专家在用真诚的同情支持打破等级障碍方面是独一无二的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
81 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信