公开对话学员对“共同关心”的期望:一项国际焦点小组研究

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES
Niels Buus, Mie Leer, Kristof Mikes-Liu, Lisa Dawson, Merete Folkmann Pedersen, Rochelle Einboden, Andrea McCloughen
{"title":"公开对话学员对“共同关心”的期望:一项国际焦点小组研究","authors":"Niels Buus,&nbsp;Mie Leer,&nbsp;Kristof Mikes-Liu,&nbsp;Lisa Dawson,&nbsp;Merete Folkmann Pedersen,&nbsp;Rochelle Einboden,&nbsp;Andrea McCloughen","doi":"10.1111/1467-6427.12365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Open Dialogue is an alternative approach to service provision for people experiencing mental health problems. Training and implementation of dialogical ways of working require that professionals disposition themselves as experts and ‘unlearn’ traditional therapeutic relations. This study explored trainees’ discussions of their expectations of Open Dialogue as they commence their training. Four focus groups, two in Australia and two in Denmark, were analysed thematically. We generated the theme ‘shared concern’ with four sub-themes: (1) ‘A democratising alternative’, (2) ‘Waiting and listening’, (3) ‘Acknowledging many kinds of expertise’ and (4) ‘Personal participation’. Rather than learning a therapeutic technique, ‘shared concern’ in dialogical practices emphasised a collaborative approach to manage ubiquitous uncertainty and a political commitment to addressing inequities in service delivery. This variance from usual reasons to undertake training has implications for course design and delivery that have yet to be considered.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Practitioner points</h3>\n \n <div>\n \n <ul>\n \n \n <li>The theme ‘shared concern’ was generated from across the focus groups, which was well aligned with the doxa of Open Dialogue</li>\n \n \n <li>Trainees emphasised their experience of Open Dialogue as a moral counterapproach to traditional healthcare with less emphasis on the actual psychotherapeutic practices</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51575,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-6427.12365","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open Dialogue trainees’ expectations of ‘shared concern’: An international focus group study\",\"authors\":\"Niels Buus,&nbsp;Mie Leer,&nbsp;Kristof Mikes-Liu,&nbsp;Lisa Dawson,&nbsp;Merete Folkmann Pedersen,&nbsp;Rochelle Einboden,&nbsp;Andrea McCloughen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-6427.12365\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <p>Open Dialogue is an alternative approach to service provision for people experiencing mental health problems. Training and implementation of dialogical ways of working require that professionals disposition themselves as experts and ‘unlearn’ traditional therapeutic relations. This study explored trainees’ discussions of their expectations of Open Dialogue as they commence their training. Four focus groups, two in Australia and two in Denmark, were analysed thematically. We generated the theme ‘shared concern’ with four sub-themes: (1) ‘A democratising alternative’, (2) ‘Waiting and listening’, (3) ‘Acknowledging many kinds of expertise’ and (4) ‘Personal participation’. Rather than learning a therapeutic technique, ‘shared concern’ in dialogical practices emphasised a collaborative approach to manage ubiquitous uncertainty and a political commitment to addressing inequities in service delivery. This variance from usual reasons to undertake training has implications for course design and delivery that have yet to be considered.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Practitioner points</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n \\n <ul>\\n \\n \\n <li>The theme ‘shared concern’ was generated from across the focus groups, which was well aligned with the doxa of Open Dialogue</li>\\n \\n \\n <li>Trainees emphasised their experience of Open Dialogue as a moral counterapproach to traditional healthcare with less emphasis on the actual psychotherapeutic practices</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-6427.12365\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6427.12365\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6427.12365","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

公开对话是向有精神健康问题的人提供服务的另一种方法。对话式工作方式的培训和实施要求专业人员将自己定位为专家,并“忘记”传统的治疗关系。本研究探讨了学员在开始培训时对开放对话的期望。四个焦点小组,两个在澳大利亚,两个在丹麦,进行了主题分析。我们提出了“共同关注”的主题,其中包括四个副主题:(1)“民主化的选择”,(2)“等待和倾听”,(3)“承认多种专业知识”和(4)“个人参与”。对话实践中的“共同关注”不是学习一种治疗技术,而是强调一种协作方法来管理无处不在的不确定性,并强调解决服务提供中的不平等问题的政治承诺。这种与通常进行培训的原因不同的情况对课程设计和授课产生了尚未考虑的影响。“共同关注”的主题是由焦点小组产生的,这与公开对话的原则很好地一致。受训者强调,他们对公开对话的经验是对传统医疗保健的一种道德反方法,而不太强调实际的心理治疗实践
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open Dialogue trainees’ expectations of ‘shared concern’: An international focus group study

Open Dialogue is an alternative approach to service provision for people experiencing mental health problems. Training and implementation of dialogical ways of working require that professionals disposition themselves as experts and ‘unlearn’ traditional therapeutic relations. This study explored trainees’ discussions of their expectations of Open Dialogue as they commence their training. Four focus groups, two in Australia and two in Denmark, were analysed thematically. We generated the theme ‘shared concern’ with four sub-themes: (1) ‘A democratising alternative’, (2) ‘Waiting and listening’, (3) ‘Acknowledging many kinds of expertise’ and (4) ‘Personal participation’. Rather than learning a therapeutic technique, ‘shared concern’ in dialogical practices emphasised a collaborative approach to manage ubiquitous uncertainty and a political commitment to addressing inequities in service delivery. This variance from usual reasons to undertake training has implications for course design and delivery that have yet to be considered.

Practitioner points

  • The theme ‘shared concern’ was generated from across the focus groups, which was well aligned with the doxa of Open Dialogue
  • Trainees emphasised their experience of Open Dialogue as a moral counterapproach to traditional healthcare with less emphasis on the actual psychotherapeutic practices
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
2.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of Family Therapy advances the understanding and treatment of human relationships constituted in systems such as couples, families and professional networks and wider groups, by publishing articles on theory, research, clinical practice and training. The editorial board includes leading academics and professionals from around the world in keeping with the high standard of international contributions, which make it one of the most widely read family therapy journals.
×
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