Search results

This paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services.

A systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes.

There was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery.

This review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English.

This review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.

To combat climate change, protect biodiversity, maintain water quality, facilitate a just transition for workers and engage citizens and communities, a diversity of stakeholders across multiple levels work together and collaborate to co-create mutually beneficial solutions. This paper aims to illustrate how a 7.5-year collaboration between local communities, researchers, academics, companies, state agencies and policymakers is contributing to the reframing of industrial harvested peatlands to regenerative ecosystems and carbon sinks with impacts on ecological, economic, social and cultural systems.

The European Union LIFE Integrated Project, Peatlands and People, responding to Ireland’s Climate Action Plan, represents Europe’s largest rehabilitation of industrially harvested peatlands. It makes extensive use of marketing research for reframing strategies and actions by partners, collaborators and communities in the evolving context of a just transition to a carbon-neutral future.

The results highlight the ecological, economic, social and cultural reframing of peatlands from fossil fuel and waste lands to regenerative ecosystems bursting with biodiversity and climate solution opportunities. Reframing impacts requires muddling through the ebbs and flows of planned, possible and unanticipated change that can deliver benefits for peatlands and people over time.

At 3 of 7.5 years into a project, the authors are muddling through how ecological reframing impacts economic and social/cultural reframing. Further impacts, planned and unplanned, can be expected.

This paper shows how an impact planning canvas tool and impact taxonomy can be applied for social and systems change. The tools can be used throughout a project to understand, respond to and manage for unplanned events. There is constant learning, constantly going back to the impact planning canvas and checking where we are, what is needed. There is action and reaction to each other and to the diversity of stakeholders affected and being affected by the reframing work.

This paper considers how systemic change through ecological, economic, social and cultural reframing is a perfectly imperfect process of muddling through which holds the promise of environmental, economic, technological, political, social and educational impacts to benefit nature, individuals, communities, organisations and society.

The purpose of the paper is to analyze how the Neo-documentalist movement, initiated in 1996 by Michael Buckland, Boyd Rayward and Niels Lund, has evolved in its 27 years history, how the choice of documentation as name of the new program in Tromsø has made a difference in the LIS field and how different documentation scholars around the world has participated and approached the movement until now.

The paper has approached the “Neo-documentalist movement” in a historical perspective from 1996 to 2023 discussing what difference does the choice of a concept make, when the concept of documentation is chosen instead of information in the name of a program and for the general discussion of the object of an academic field like Library and Information Science.

The analysis shows that it did make a difference to choose the concept of documentation as name of the program in Tromsø and the Neo-documentalist movement contributed to a new focus and discussion of the informative objects, the documents and their creation, not only in Tromsø, but in different parts of the world across linguistic borders.

The paper is original by the fact that it is the first time that the neo documentalist movement has been reviewed on a global scale across linguistic barriers. It has value by a discussion of the ways in which a choice of concept matter in relation to defining a field and the research agenda.

To understand how parents make the decision to implant their deaf young children with cochlear implants, focusing specifically on the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma.

I conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with the hearing parents or parent of children with cochlear implants. In all but two families I interviewed the primary caretaker which in all cases was a mother. In the remaining two interviews, I interviewed both parents together. Because of the relative scarcity of families with children with cochlear implants, and the difficulty in connecting with these families, I used a convenience sample, and I did not stratify it in any way. The only requirement for parents to be interviewed is that they had at least one deaf child who had been implanted with at least one cochlear implant. Although this is a small sample, the findings are transferable to other families with the same sociodemographic characteristics as those in my study.

Parents in the study focused on three key concepts: normality, risk analysis, and being a good parent. Dispositional factors such as the need to be “normal” and the desire for material success for one's children appeared to moderate the cost-benefit calculus.

This interview project concentrated on hearing families who had implanted their deaf children with cochlear implants; it does not include culturally Deaf parents who choose to use American Sign Language (ASL) with their Deaf children. Understanding how Deaf families understand the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma would shed light on how a distinctly “abnormal” group (by a statistical conception of normal) – ASL-using Deaf people-explain normality in the face of using a non-typical communication method. One can learn a lot by studying the absence of a phenomena, in this case, not implanting children with cochlear implants. It is possible that the existential threat felt by some Deaf people, specifically the demographic problem presented by cochlear implants, led Deaf educators or parents to resist being the subject of research.

Overwhelmingly the sample was female, and white. Only two participants were male, and none of the participants were non-white. The lack of diversity in the sample does not necessarily reflect a lack of diversity of children receiving cochlear implants. Medicaid, which disproportionately covers families of color, covers cochlear implants in most cases, so low SES/racial intersectionality should not have affected the lack of diversity in the sample. However, the oral schools are all private pay, with few scholarships available, so low SES/racial intersectionality in the sampling universe (all children who attend oral schools), may have played a part in the lack of racial diversity within the sample.

Parents in this study were very specific about the fact that they believed cochlear implants would lead to academic, professional, and personal success. They weaved narratives of normality, medicalization, and stigma through their stories. Normality is an important lens from which to see stories about disability and ability, as well as medical correction. As medical science continues to advance, more and more conditions will become medicalized, leading to more and more people taking advanced medical treatments to address problems that were previously considered “problems with living” that are now considered “medical problems” that can be treated with advanced science.

This chapter's contribution to the sociological cochlear implant literature is it's weaving of narratives about normality, stigma, and medicalization into parental stories about the cochlear implant decision-making process. Most literature about the cochlear implant decision-making process focus on cost-benefit analysis, and logical decision-making processes, whereas this paper focuses on decision-making factors stemming from bias, emotions, and values.

Michael Buckland's works have spanned theoretical, historical and practice-oriented foci and genre. This article focuses on some of his theoretical-historical works that span over 20 years, which demonstrate a reading and critique of European Documentation in terms of what has been called “Documentality.” This turn to a philosophy of information called “Documentality” marks the moment of “neo-documentation.” This article surveys this moment in Buckland's works by reading his articles “Information as Thing,” “What is a ‘Document’?”, and “Documentality Beyond Documents.” It shows the transition from Documentation as a philosophy of information as representation to Documentality as a philosophy of information as function and performance. Some concepts and works of Bruno Latour are used to illuminate this transition from Documentation to Documentality. Implications and further research directions are discussed at the end.

Conceptual and historical analyses.

The article follows a neo-documentalist transition in Buckland's works in the thinking of documents from an Otletian representationalist epistemology (“Documentation”) to a functionalist and performative epistemology (“Documentality”) for documents.

This is a conceptual work on a limited corpus in Buckland's oeuvre. It has a limited discussion of Documentality in the works of other writers, namely the works of Bernd Frohmann and Maurizio Ferraris.

The article points to historical shifts in the study of documents in Library and Information Science.

Documentality critically and materially studies documents in sociotechnical information management systems and elsewhere.

This work highlights the importance of the above works and the importance of the neo-documentalist perspective of Documentality.

With the high penetration rate of the Internet and the prevalence of social networking sites (SNSs), the negative emotions caused by stressors on SNS have become an important issue worthy of attention. This study explored the relationship between SNS stressors, negative emotions and prosocial behavior, by employing negative emotions as the mediation role and social support as the moderator.

The samples of this study were Facebook users who have used it constantly in the past six months. An online survey was conducted, from which 547 responses were completed, and 525 were valid, for an effective recovery ratio of 95.98%.

Employing the structural equation model (SEM), the findings show that five paths were supported with a good fit. Negative emotions (anxiety and loneliness) have a moderating effect.

This study contributes to the literature by factors divided by negative emotions of anxiety and loneliness from SNS stressors’ perspectives. In addition, this study provides additional support the moderating effect of social support of anxiety on prosocial behavior.