Search results

In this study, the authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of low-intensity psychological interventions provided face-to-face (FTF) with those provided by telephone and video-based modalities, in a primary care psychology service for individuals with mild-to-moderate mental health difficulties.

Participants (N = 384) were service users who completed at least one intervention with the service over a two-year period between 2019 and 2021. Using psychometric measures of anxiety and low mood, a repeated measures design pre-, mid- and post-intervention evaluated service users’ clinical outcomes. Data analysis was carried out on those participants (N = 289) who had completed all three of the required psychometric measures.

All formats of intervention showed a significant and equivalent reduction in low mood and anxiety scores at the completion of the intervention, regardless of the format of therapy. This suggests no discernible difference in the effectiveness of the three formats of intervention in this service. In addition, no significant association was found between the format of intervention and service user dropout rates.

This study availed of data arising pre and during a pandemic as a naturalistic experiment into the use of telehealth in delivering brief psychological interventions in a frontline community service. The effectiveness of telephone and video-based brief psychological interventions was found to be comparable to that experienced by FTF interventions. This provides preliminary support for the inclusion of telehealth options for service users engaging with low-intensity psychotherapeutic services.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the discourses which exist around the alleviation of mental distress, from the different perspective of mental health professionals and service users. It then looks at the use of “practice-based evidence” as a means of bringing together these two diverging discourses.

Literature on the discourses which exist around the cause and treatment of mental distress, from the perspective of professionals and service users, is first explored. Differences between these two discourses are identified, as are theoretical and practical limitations of current professional diagnostic and treatment paradigms. Finally the use of practice-based evidence as a means of bridging the gap between these two discourses is outlined.

This paper highlights marked differences between the discourse which exists for professionals, and that for service users, around alleviating mental distress. The use of practice-based evidence is explored, not only as a means of bringing these two varying discourses together, but also as a tool which could help to improve treatment outcome in a way which is more inclusive of service users and fits with both empiricism and a broader recovery ethos.

This paper applies a “practice-based evidence” approach to bringing together the divergent perspectives regarding mental health of service providers and users. In doing so it provides a practical and pragmatic approach to true collaborative working.

This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped-care primary care psychology service through triangulating clinical outcome data, service user satisfaction ratings and feedback from referrers.

A mixed method approach including a repeated measures design (pre- and post-clinical data on standardised psychometrics) for clinical outcomes and an online and postal survey with quantitative and qualitative elements offered to all service users and referrers to the service.

In total, 125 service users completed a full intervention with the service with 56% treatment completers demonstrating a reliable reduction in the symptoms of low mood and 49.6% in anxiety. Of those within the clinical range for depression at assessment, 66.67% achieved clinical recovery following an intervention. Of those within the clinical range for an anxiety disorder at assessment, 62.03% achieved clinical recovery following an intervention. Service users reported high levels of satisfaction with the service specifying particular interpersonal qualities of the therapists and the individualisation of service provision as crucial positive factors. Referrers similarly reported high levels of overall satisfaction with the service, specifying that the speed of response to referral and length of intervention was of greatest importance to them.

Stepped-care psychological interventions reduce psychological distress in treatment completers with mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety and low mood. The overall interpersonal experience may be of greater importance to service users in their evaluation of a service than clinical outcomes. In their relationship to a Psychology service, referrers value speed of response and ongoing feedback. Building a robust, highly valued service may require the triangulation of evidence from all key stakeholders.

This paper provides a pragmatic template of how a rigorous evaluation of a primary care psychology service requires evidence from multiple stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the limitations of the current research paradigm in mental health, particularly from a recovery perspective, and to suggest an alternative approach to clinical research which may be more in line with recovery principles.

The paper will first review the dominant research methodology utilised by the mental health disciplines, discussing some of the limitations of this approach, particularly from a recovery perspective. Existing research methodologies which embody recovery principles will then be outlined, before an alternative, more recovery-oriented, approach to research is discussed.

The findings from this paper suggest that the current research paradigm utilised by the mental health disciplines may not be producing the most optimal results, and that a more recovery-oriented approach could help add to the value of this research, while also involving service users and their carers in the research process in a more meaningful way.

This paper will explore possibilities for undertaking recovery-informed research, which has implications, not only for researchers, service users and their families, but also for the practice of mental health disciplines more broadly.

This paper will introduce a critique of traditional research methodology in mental health and will present an alternative recovery-oriented approach which could help to overcome some of the limitations of the more traditional approach.

The purpose of this study is to outline a process-oriented psychology informed view of the impact of ever-increasing acuity within an adult inpatient system and conceptualise how an integrated therapies team (ITT) can work with the chaos that this brings.

A reflective scientist-practitioner based approach was used over a two-year period.

Several factors lead to “chaos” in an inpatient unit, including societal inequality, the trauma and adversity it creates and the impact of this at a systemic, interpersonal and intrapersonal level. Chaos is one means of coping and can dominate inpatient working, whereas understanding the underlying distress is often marginalised. Developing an ITT can support working with chaos. The ITT holds the therapeutic perspective for the wider multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and therapeutic and facilitation skills are central to how it operates. Processing the chaos and working with the underlying distress is its overarching function.

Developing an ITT offers a robust structure for evolving inpatient MDT working to cope with increasing acuity in a psychologically informed way.

The chaos in question is often viewed as patients’ issue but from a collectivist perspective it is something that all members of society are responsible for.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to conceptualise the chaos on an inpatient ward as a process needed by the system as a way of coping and propose the addition of an ITT to inpatient working.

Patrick Pearse’s status in Ireland today oscillates between the iconic and kitsch: he was recently voted by readers of a newspaper as the person whom they would most like to see commemorated by a statue or monument in central Dublin (though this proposal has not met with universal approval even with that publication’s staff) and as one of the most important Irish heroes by readers of another paper. But it also possible to buy chess piece like statuettes or figurines of this national hero in tourist souvenir shops as one might buy model or tin soldiers. However, Pearse has consistently, and often fulsomely, been praised for his educational work and ideas, even by those who are otherwise critics, being described by one as ‘stimulating and, for Ireland at least, novel’ in this respect.

Knowledge‐based systems are beginning to provide executives with powerful systems which serve to automate corporate expertise. This is the first of two articles exploring KBS and their corporate implications.

The five play texts You Strike the Woman, You Strike the Rock (Phyllis Klotz, 1994), Glass House (Fatima Dike, 2002), Born in the RSA (Barney Simon, 1994), Has Anyone Seen Zandile? (Gcina Mhlophe, 1994), and So What’s New? (Fatima Dike, 1998) are introduced providing a brief insight into the strength of women as they struggle to make a living for their children in the face of extremely adverse political conditions, both in urban areas and in their households, as well as their suffering and grief for the loss of children caught up in the political struggle. Marginalised and struggling African women represented the most vulnerable members of the urban community. The reader is introduced to the voices within the play texts and how they represent both white and black South African women and how they on women’s lives from different backgrounds, classes and race thereby providing insight into their diversity of experiences and the censorial and penal repercussions women were forced to endure for contravening political Afrikaner ideology and statutory law.