8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perspectives of patients, carers and mental health staff on early warning signs of relapse in psychosis: a qualitative investigation

      research-article
      , MA, , PhD, , PhD, , PhD, , PhD, , DClinPsych, , MSc, , PhD *
      BJPsych Open
      Cambridge University Press
      Implementation, schizophrenia, clinical decision-making, qualitative research

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Relapse prevention strategies based on monitoring of early warning signs (EWS) are advocated for the management of psychosis. However, there has been a lack of research exploring how staff, carers and patients make sense of the utility of EWS, or how these are implemented in context.

          Aims

          To develop a multiperspective theory of how EWS are understood and used, which is grounded in the experiences of mental health staff, carers and patients.

          Method

          Twenty-five focus groups were held across Glasgow and Melbourne (EMPOWER Trial, ISRCTN: 99559262). Participants comprised 88 mental health staff, 21 patients and 40 carers from UK and Australia (total n = 149). Data were analysed using constructivist grounded theory.

          Results

          All participants appeared to recognise EWS and acknowledged the importance of responding to EWS to support relapse prevention. However, recognition of and acting on EWS were constructed in a context of uncertainty, which appeared linked to risk appraisals that were dependent on distinct stakeholder roles and experiences. Within current relapse management, a process of weighted decision-making (where one factor was seen as more important than others) described how stakeholders weighed up the risks and consequences of relapse alongside the risks and consequences of intervention and help-seeking.

          Conclusions

          Mental health staff, carers and patients speak about using EWS within a weighted decision-making process, which is acted out in the context of relationships that exist in current relapse management, rather than an objective response to specific signs and symptoms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Discrete choice experiments in health care.

            Mandy Ryan (2004)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine

              Background Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is maturing from its early focus on epidemiology to embrace a wider range of disciplines and methodologies. At the heart of EBM is the patient, whose informed choices have long been recognised as paramount. However, good evidence-based care is more than choices. Discussion We discuss six potential ‘biases’ in EBM that may inadvertently devalue the patient and carer agenda: limited patient input to research design, low status given to experience in the hierarchy of evidence, a tendency to conflate patient-centred consulting with use of decision tools; insufficient attention to power imbalances that suppress the patient’s voice, over-emphasis on the clinical consultation, and focus on people who seek and obtain care (rather than the hidden denominator of those that do not seek or cannot access care). Summary To reduce these ‘biases’, EBM should embrace patient involvement in research, make more systematic use of individual (‘personally significant’) evidence, take a more interdisciplinary and humanistic view of consultations, address unequal power dynamics in healthcare encounters, support patient communities, and address the inverse care law.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJPsych Open
                BJPsych Open
                BJO
                BJPsych Open
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                2056-4724
                January 2020
                12 December 2019
                : 6
                : 1
                : e3
                Affiliations
                [1]Student, Glasgow Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow , UK
                [2]Trial Manager, Glasgow Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow , UK
                [3]Professor, Glasgow Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow , UK
                [4]Professor, Australian Catholic University , Australia
                [5]Associate Professor, La Trobe University , Australia
                [6]Research Assistant, Australian Catholic University , Australia
                [7]Research Assistant, Glasgow Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow , UK
                [8]Professor, Glasgow Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow , UK
                [9]see Acknowledgements.
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Andrew I. Gumley. Email: andrew.gumley@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk
                [*]

                See the Acknowledgements for members of the research group.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4175-0591
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-1815
                Article
                S2056472419000887
                10.1192/bjo.2019.88
                7001464
                31826793
                9f7df526-e7bf-45c4-894a-39a8e910767c
                © The Author(s) 2019

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 August 2019
                : 04 October 2019
                : 06 November 2019
                Page count
                References: 38, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Papers

                implementation,schizophrenia,clinical decision-making,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article