Search results

This study aims to examine what patients say is helpful in psychodynamic psychotherapy by analyzing responses to an open-ended question at two time points: three months into treatment and termination.

Participants in this naturalistic study were a diverse group of patients seeking treatment at a psychodynamic psychotherapy training clinic (within a public hospital system). The authors used thematic analysis to categorize patient responses to an open-ended question about what is helpful in their treatment.

The authors found that a majority of patients found their psychotherapy helpful, and patient responses broke down into 16 categories. Themes that emerged from categories were what patients experience or feel, what therapists/therapy provides and what patients do in therapy. The most frequently endorsed category at both three months and termination was embedded within other categories, “mention of an other,” which captured when patients specifically mentioned another person (i.e. the therapist) in their response. The next most frequently endorsed categories were “talking/someone to talk with,” “feeling better/experiencing well-being/improved functioning” and “having regularity/structure” (at three months) and “having attention directed at experience,” “having regularity/structure” and “experiencing the professional role of the therapist” (at termination).

Findings shed light on factors contributing to helpful psychotherapy from patients’ perspectives in their own words. While previous research has shown that the therapy relationship is an important factor in effective therapy, the findings of this study highlight this ingredient in a personal, spontaneous way.

The purpose of this paper is to address the barrier to care experienced by LGBTQIA+ populations by binary language for gender, sexual orientation and relationship status.

The authors review the research that shows linguistic barriers are a significant obstacle to healthcare for LGBTQIA+ communities. The authors describe both a process and revisions for addressing language bias in psychiatric intake/research research materials as well as quantify its impact in an adult psychotherapy clinic in a public hospital.

Patients self-identified their gender, sexual orientation and relationship status in a variety of ways when not presented with binaries and/or pre-established response choices. In addition, the non-response rate to questions decreased and the authors received positive qualitative feedback. The authors also present the revisions to the intake/research materials.

Other healthcare settings/clinicians can revise language in order to remove significant barriers to treatment and in doing so, be welcoming, non-pathologizing and empowering for LGBTQIA+ consumers of mental health services (as well as for non-LGBTQIA+ consumers who are in non-traditional relationships).

This work is one step in improving healthcare and the healthcare experience for LGBTQIA+ communities and for those in non-traditional relationships.

This work is set in a public safety-net hospital providing care for underserved and diverse populations. This paper describes the process of revising psychiatric materials to be more inclusive of the range of self-identity are: gender, sexual orientation and relationship status.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss three projects from three institutions that are dealing with challenges with natural sciences field documentation. Each is working to create the collection, item and data-level description required so that researchers can fully use the data to study how biodiversity has changed over time and space. Libraries, archives and museums recognize the need to make content searchable across material type. To create online catalogs that would make this possible, ideally, all records would describe one item. Museums and libraries describe their materials at the item level; however, archives must balance the need to describe the collection as a whole alongside needs of collection materials that may require more description to reconnect with library and museum items. There is a growing determination inside of archives to increase this flow of data, particularly for the natural sciences, by creating workflows that provide additional description to make these data discoverable. This process is a bit like drilling into the earth: each level must be described before the next can be dealt with.

The piece describes challenges, approaches and workflows of three institutions developing deeper levels of description for archival materials that will be made available online to a specialized audience. It also describes the methods developed so that the material’s data can eventually be accessed at a more granular level and linked to related resources.

Current systems, schema and standards are adapted as necessary, and the natural sciences archival community is still working to develop best practices. However, they are getting much closer through the collaboration made possible through grants in the recent years.

The work described in this paper is ongoing, and best practices resulting from the work are still under development.

Instructors at tertiary-level institutions in the Gulf are increasingly encouraged to reflect on their teaching practice. This article is both a reflection on my own practice and an attempt to demonstrate, through recounting a personal experience, how reflection can contribute positively to any teacher's self-knowledge and consequent performance in the classroom.

This paper responds to recent calls for deeper scrutiny of the institutional contexts of citizen science. In the last few years, at least two dozen civil society organizations in New York and Pennsylvania have begun monitoring the watershed impacts of unconventional natural gas drilling, also known as “fracking.” This study examines the institutional logics that inform these citizen monitoring efforts and probes how relationships with academic science and the regulatory state affect the practices of citizen scientists. We find that the diverse practices of the organizations in the participatory water monitoring field are guided by logics of consciousness-raising, environmental policing, and science. Organizations that initiate monitoring projects typically attempt to combine two or more of these logics as they develop new practices in response to macro-level social and environmental changes. The dominant logic of the field remains unsettled, and many groups appear uncertain about whether and how their practices might have an influence. We conclude that the impacts of macro-level changes, such as the scientization of politics, the rise of neoliberal policy ideas, or even large-scale industrial transformations, are likely to be experienced in field-specific ways.

The purpose of this paper is to expand understandings of interorganizational collaboration among high reliability organizations (HROs). It proposes that HROs face unique needs for relationship building, pre-planning, and retrospective sensemaking that do not fit within prior models of collaboration. For HROs, definitions of collaboration vary contextually based on needs that arise during emergency situations. HROs have a need for both hierarchical structure and collaborative processes and use collaboration as a sensemaking frame that allows practitioners to attend to both needs.

The paper uses a case study from an ongoing ethnographic study of an emergency response collaboration. The paper uses open-ended interviews about collaboration with all key members of the incident response hierarchy, and participant observation of collaboration before, during and after a key emergency incident.

The paper proposes a new framework for HRO collaboration: that collaboration is a sensemaking frame for HROs used to make sense of individual actions, that HRO collaboration is more complex during pre-planning and focused on individual decision making during incidents, and that members can communicatively make sense of the need for hierarchy and collaborative action by defining these needs contextually.

The paper uses an in-depth case study of an incident to explore this collaborative framework; therefore, researchers are encouraged to test this framework in additional high reliability collaborative contexts.

The paper includes implications for best communicative practices to recognize the need to be both hierarchical and flexible in high reliability organizing.

This paper fulfills a need to expand collaboration literature beyond idealized and egalitarian definitions, in order to understand how practitioners use communication to understand their actions as collaborative, especially in organizations that also require hierarchy and individual actions. This case study suggests that collaboration as a sensemaking frame creates collaborative advantages for HROs, but can also limit sensemaking about incident management.

The purpose of this paper is to apply current understanding of service user involvement (SUI) to forensic practice with reference to the benefits and drawbacks. Specifically, it discusses models of SUI and their application to a psychologically informed planned environment (PIPE) located in a Category C male prison.

Drawing upon residents’ experiences, the evaluation reflects on the contribution of cultural, environmental and political factors to the success or failure of SUI within the PIPE service.

The evaluation will review current systems and explore ways of improving and strengthening strategies by referring to the “whole systems approach” to SUI (Wright, 2006).

The evaluation makes recommendations for local and national SUI within PIPE services.

No one concerned for the dignity of letters can have failed to notice the increasing voracity and audibility of publishers' advertising of recent years. With this in mind I have been studying the literary section of an issue of the Observer. The results are disquieting. The “Books of the Day” feature runs from page 4 to page 9. On page 4 the text proper occupies three centre columns (not quite full columns, for Michael Joseph butts in with an advertisement across the foot). It is flanked on the left by Hodder and Stoughton, a two‐column spread from top to bottom; on the right is another two‐column spread of which Victor Gollancz has the lion's share. Hodder's display is a series of drab shaded panels, Gollancz's is a characteristically resonant proclamation in heavy type: the two in opposition strike discords in the midst of which the actual matter of the book reviews twitters faintly like a virginal trying to be heard in a mass‐meeting of trombones and bugles. Page 5 is split clean in half, three columns being devoted to text and the remainder—a massive four‐column spread—being again dedicated to Mr. Gollancz's commercial purposes. Page 6 repeats the tale—three columns of text to four of advertisements. On pages 7 and 8 the proportion of advertisement to text is equally heavy. On page 9 (the last of the literary section) the comparatively “decent pomp” of Harrap and Cassell is to the forefront—but by some oversight a dividend of two half‐columns of text above the average quota has been allowed to creep in. In all, the six book pages of one of our leading Sunday journals are carved up, roughly, as: text, nineteen columns; advertisements, twenty‐three columns.