陷入矛盾:专业人员对精神分裂症概念的描述及其在临床实践中的应用

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Hanna de Waal, M. Boyle, A. Cooke
{"title":"陷入矛盾:专业人员对精神分裂症概念的描述及其在临床实践中的应用","authors":"Hanna de Waal, M. Boyle, A. Cooke","doi":"10.1080/17522439.2022.2086607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background The concept of schizophrenia has been contested since its inception. Over the last decades, criticism of the concept has become increasingly mainstream and calls for its abandonment have intensified. Nevertheless, the concept remains widely used and retains taken-for-granted status within much mental health research and practice. The combination of its contested status and continued use raises questions about how it is used and with what implications for people who receive the diagnosis. Methods This study explores how ‘schizophrenia’ is spoken about by mental health professionals who use the diagnosis in day-to-day practice. Eight interviews with professionals across professions were analysed using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. Results Two striking and consistent themes were identified. The first is a discrepancy between the way participants talked about ‘schizophrenia’ to the interviewer, and the way they described talking about it in clinical encounters. The second is the potentially entrapping impact of the wider discourses participants drew on in talk about clinical encounters. Conclusions The study concludes with reflections on how those working in the mental health field can break out of this discursive entrapment, and help the people they work with do the same.","PeriodicalId":46344,"journal":{"name":"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trapped in contradictions: professionals’ accounts of the concept of schizophrenia and its use in clinical practice\",\"authors\":\"Hanna de Waal, M. Boyle, A. Cooke\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17522439.2022.2086607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Background The concept of schizophrenia has been contested since its inception. Over the last decades, criticism of the concept has become increasingly mainstream and calls for its abandonment have intensified. Nevertheless, the concept remains widely used and retains taken-for-granted status within much mental health research and practice. The combination of its contested status and continued use raises questions about how it is used and with what implications for people who receive the diagnosis. Methods This study explores how ‘schizophrenia’ is spoken about by mental health professionals who use the diagnosis in day-to-day practice. Eight interviews with professionals across professions were analysed using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. Results Two striking and consistent themes were identified. The first is a discrepancy between the way participants talked about ‘schizophrenia’ to the interviewer, and the way they described talking about it in clinical encounters. The second is the potentially entrapping impact of the wider discourses participants drew on in talk about clinical encounters. Conclusions The study concludes with reflections on how those working in the mental health field can break out of this discursive entrapment, and help the people they work with do the same.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2022.2086607\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychosis-Psychological Social and Integrative Approaches","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2022.2086607","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trapped in contradictions: professionals’ accounts of the concept of schizophrenia and its use in clinical practice
ABSTRACT Background The concept of schizophrenia has been contested since its inception. Over the last decades, criticism of the concept has become increasingly mainstream and calls for its abandonment have intensified. Nevertheless, the concept remains widely used and retains taken-for-granted status within much mental health research and practice. The combination of its contested status and continued use raises questions about how it is used and with what implications for people who receive the diagnosis. Methods This study explores how ‘schizophrenia’ is spoken about by mental health professionals who use the diagnosis in day-to-day practice. Eight interviews with professionals across professions were analysed using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. Results Two striking and consistent themes were identified. The first is a discrepancy between the way participants talked about ‘schizophrenia’ to the interviewer, and the way they described talking about it in clinical encounters. The second is the potentially entrapping impact of the wider discourses participants drew on in talk about clinical encounters. Conclusions The study concludes with reflections on how those working in the mental health field can break out of this discursive entrapment, and help the people they work with do the same.
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
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
36
×
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