"他们认为我在胡编乱造":解离者对其解离的理解、临床医生对解离概念的看法以及二者之间的差异。

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Nicholas A Pierorazio, Jerrica L Robertson, M Shae Nester, Bethany L Brand
{"title":"\"他们认为我在胡编乱造\":解离者对其解离的理解、临床医生对解离概念的看法以及二者之间的差异。","authors":"Nicholas A Pierorazio, Jerrica L Robertson, M Shae Nester, Bethany L Brand","doi":"10.1037/tra0001800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Dissociation is thought to be traumagenic, though this conceptualization is not without misunderstanding and stigma. There is little research regarding people's conceptualizations of their dissociative experiences and client-clinician discrepancies in understanding dissociation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An online survey assessed 208 self-reported dissociative participants' understandings of their dissociation and their beliefs about their clinicians' understanding of dissociation via two open-ended questions. Template analysis, a codebook thematic analysis approach, was employed to explore and compare the ways people understand their dissociation and their perceptions of their clinicians' conceptualizations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four themes were developed to capture participants' perspectives: (1) Dissociation as Stigmatized and Underexplored (<i>n</i> = 83; 39.90%); (2) Dissociation as Individualized and Normalized Lived Experience (<i>n</i> = 173; 83.17%); (3) Dissociation as Clinical and/or Pathological (<i>n</i> = 112; 53.85%); and (4) Dissociation Through Etiological Frameworks (<i>n</i> = 67; 32.21%). Overall, 73.48% of participants indicated discrepancies between their understandings of their dissociation and those of their clinicians. Participants understood their dissociation through a lens of individualized and normalized lived experiences (100.00%) more often than their clinicians (23.12%). They believed their clinicians held more clinical understandings of dissociation (81.25%) than themselves (69.64%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the perceived discrepancies between clients' and clinicians' understandings of dissociation, clinicians should engage in discussions with their clients about their dissociation-related lived experiences with awareness that they may have been misunderstood by previous providers. Client-clinician discrepancies should be addressed, as failure to do so could lead to misunderstandings and ruptures in the therapeutic relationship. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"They thought I was just making it up\\\": Dissociative individuals' understandings of their dissociation, perceptions of their clinicians' conceptualizations of dissociation, and discrepancies between them.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas A Pierorazio, Jerrica L Robertson, M Shae Nester, Bethany L Brand\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/tra0001800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Dissociation is thought to be traumagenic, though this conceptualization is not without misunderstanding and stigma. There is little research regarding people's conceptualizations of their dissociative experiences and client-clinician discrepancies in understanding dissociation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An online survey assessed 208 self-reported dissociative participants' understandings of their dissociation and their beliefs about their clinicians' understanding of dissociation via two open-ended questions. Template analysis, a codebook thematic analysis approach, was employed to explore and compare the ways people understand their dissociation and their perceptions of their clinicians' conceptualizations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four themes were developed to capture participants' perspectives: (1) Dissociation as Stigmatized and Underexplored (<i>n</i> = 83; 39.90%); (2) Dissociation as Individualized and Normalized Lived Experience (<i>n</i> = 173; 83.17%); (3) Dissociation as Clinical and/or Pathological (<i>n</i> = 112; 53.85%); and (4) Dissociation Through Etiological Frameworks (<i>n</i> = 67; 32.21%). Overall, 73.48% of participants indicated discrepancies between their understandings of their dissociation and those of their clinicians. Participants understood their dissociation through a lens of individualized and normalized lived experiences (100.00%) more often than their clinicians (23.12%). They believed their clinicians held more clinical understandings of dissociation (81.25%) than themselves (69.64%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the perceived discrepancies between clients' and clinicians' understandings of dissociation, clinicians should engage in discussions with their clients about their dissociation-related lived experiences with awareness that they may have been misunderstood by previous providers. Client-clinician discrepancies should be addressed, as failure to do so could lead to misunderstandings and ruptures in the therapeutic relationship. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001800\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001800","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:解离被认为是创伤性的,尽管这种概念化并非没有误解和污名。有关人们对其解离体验的概念化以及客户与医生在理解解离方面的差异的研究很少:网上调查通过两个开放式问题评估了 208 名自我报告的解离参与者对其解离的理解以及他们对临床医生对解离的理解的看法。我们采用了模板分析法(一种代码表主题分析方法)来探索和比较人们对其解离的理解方式以及他们对临床医生概念化的看法:结果:通过四个主题来捕捉参与者的观点:(1) 解离是一种耻辱和未被充分探索的现象(n = 83;39.90%);(2) 解离是一种个性化和正常化的生活体验(n = 173;83.17%);(3) 解离是一种临床和/或病理现象(n = 112;53.85%);(4) 解离是一种病因框架(n = 67;32.21%)。总体而言,73.48% 的参与者表示他们对解离的理解与临床医生的理解存在差异。与临床医生(23.12%)相比,参与者更经常从个性化和正常化的生活经历(100.00%)的角度来理解他们的解离。他们认为临床医生对解离的临床理解(81.25%)多于他们自己(69.64%):鉴于客户和临床医生对解离的理解存在差异,临床医生应与客户讨论他们与解离相关的生活经历,并意识到他们可能被以前的服务提供者误解了。客户与临床医生之间的差异应该得到解决,否则可能会导致治疗关系中的误解和破裂。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"They thought I was just making it up": Dissociative individuals' understandings of their dissociation, perceptions of their clinicians' conceptualizations of dissociation, and discrepancies between them.

Objective: Dissociation is thought to be traumagenic, though this conceptualization is not without misunderstanding and stigma. There is little research regarding people's conceptualizations of their dissociative experiences and client-clinician discrepancies in understanding dissociation.

Method: An online survey assessed 208 self-reported dissociative participants' understandings of their dissociation and their beliefs about their clinicians' understanding of dissociation via two open-ended questions. Template analysis, a codebook thematic analysis approach, was employed to explore and compare the ways people understand their dissociation and their perceptions of their clinicians' conceptualizations.

Results: Four themes were developed to capture participants' perspectives: (1) Dissociation as Stigmatized and Underexplored (n = 83; 39.90%); (2) Dissociation as Individualized and Normalized Lived Experience (n = 173; 83.17%); (3) Dissociation as Clinical and/or Pathological (n = 112; 53.85%); and (4) Dissociation Through Etiological Frameworks (n = 67; 32.21%). Overall, 73.48% of participants indicated discrepancies between their understandings of their dissociation and those of their clinicians. Participants understood their dissociation through a lens of individualized and normalized lived experiences (100.00%) more often than their clinicians (23.12%). They believed their clinicians held more clinical understandings of dissociation (81.25%) than themselves (69.64%).

Conclusions: Given the perceived discrepancies between clients' and clinicians' understandings of dissociation, clinicians should engage in discussions with their clients about their dissociation-related lived experiences with awareness that they may have been misunderstood by previous providers. Client-clinician discrepancies should be addressed, as failure to do so could lead to misunderstandings and ruptures in the therapeutic relationship. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
427
期刊介绍: Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy publishes empirical research on the psychological effects of trauma. The journal is intended to be a forum for an interdisciplinary discussion on trauma, blending science, theory, practice, and policy. The journal publishes empirical research on a wide range of trauma-related topics, including: -Psychological treatments and effects -Promotion of education about effects of and treatment for trauma -Assessment and diagnosis of trauma -Pathophysiology of trauma reactions -Health services (delivery of services to trauma populations) -Epidemiological studies and risk factor studies -Neuroimaging studies -Trauma and cultural competence
×
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