Therapeutic stance towards persons with psychosis - a Grounded Theory study.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1080/17482631.2024.2333064
Laura Galbusera, Ralph Endres, Thelke Scholz, Emilia Jirku, Samuel Thoma
{"title":"Therapeutic stance towards persons with psychosis - a Grounded Theory study.","authors":"Laura Galbusera, Ralph Endres, Thelke Scholz, Emilia Jirku, Samuel Thoma","doi":"10.1080/17482631.2024.2333064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Over the last decades, psychotherapy of psychosis has increasingly gained attention. The quality of the therapeutic alliance has been shown to have an impact on therapy outcome. Yet, little is know about the influence of the therapeutic stance on the alliance. In this study, we explore psychotherapists' stance towards persons with psychosis with the aim of better understanding its characteristic-hindering and helpful-aspects.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>6 semi-structured interviews with psychotherapists from three different schools (CBT, PD, ST) were analysed with Grounded Theory. Credibility was checked through external and peer-researcher-supported debriefing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>4 core categories were generated and interrelated in a theoretical model. Therapists' stance was initially characterized by insecurity. Diffent ways of dealing with insecurity yielded different stances: a monological and an open one. A helpful stance was conceived as stemming from openness and was characterized by a dialogical structure. A co-presence (or \"dosing\") of you and I was conceived as its core aspect.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings specify the interpersonal dynamics arising from different stances and their impact on the therapeutic alliance and process. Research is still needed to further understand the characteristics of helpful and hindering therapeutic stances, which should also inform the training of psychotherapists.</p>","PeriodicalId":51468,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being","volume":"19 1","pages":"2333064"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10984242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2024.2333064","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Over the last decades, psychotherapy of psychosis has increasingly gained attention. The quality of the therapeutic alliance has been shown to have an impact on therapy outcome. Yet, little is know about the influence of the therapeutic stance on the alliance. In this study, we explore psychotherapists' stance towards persons with psychosis with the aim of better understanding its characteristic-hindering and helpful-aspects.

Method: 6 semi-structured interviews with psychotherapists from three different schools (CBT, PD, ST) were analysed with Grounded Theory. Credibility was checked through external and peer-researcher-supported debriefing.

Results: 4 core categories were generated and interrelated in a theoretical model. Therapists' stance was initially characterized by insecurity. Diffent ways of dealing with insecurity yielded different stances: a monological and an open one. A helpful stance was conceived as stemming from openness and was characterized by a dialogical structure. A co-presence (or "dosing") of you and I was conceived as its core aspect.

Conclusion: These findings specify the interpersonal dynamics arising from different stances and their impact on the therapeutic alliance and process. Research is still needed to further understand the characteristics of helpful and hindering therapeutic stances, which should also inform the training of psychotherapists.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对精神病患者的治疗立场--一项基础理论研究。
目的:在过去的几十年里,精神病的心理治疗越来越受到人们的关注。治疗联盟的质量已被证明会对治疗结果产生影响。然而,人们对治疗立场对治疗联盟的影响知之甚少。在本研究中,我们探讨了心理治疗师对精神病患者的态度,旨在更好地了解其特点--阻碍和帮助方面:采用基础理论(Grounded Theory)对来自三个不同流派(CBT、PD、ST)的心理治疗师进行了 6 次半结构式访谈。结果:产生了 4 个核心类别,这些类别之间相互关联:产生了 4 个核心类别,并在理论模型中相互关联。治疗师的立场最初以不安全感为特征。处理不安全感的不同方式产生了不同的立场:单一立场和开放立场。有益的立场源于开放性,以对话结构为特征。你和我的共同存在(或 "定量")被认为是其核心方面:这些研究结果明确了不同立场所产生的人际动态及其对治疗联盟和治疗过程的影响。仍需开展研究,以进一步了解有益和有碍治疗的立场的特点,这也应为心理治疗师的培训提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
99
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being acknowledges the international and interdisciplinary nature of health-related issues. It intends to provide a meeting-point for studies using rigorous qualitative methodology of significance for issues related to human health and well-being. The aim of the International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being is to support and to shape the emerging field of qualitative studies and to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of human health and well-being.
期刊最新文献
"It takes a lot of sisu to get through it"- managerial experiences of facing adversities during pandemic. A qualitative study on the caregiver burden experience in home reflux enema management of infants with congenital megacolon. Exploring the experiences of female undergraduate nursing students in providing home healthcare to older adults. Lost and changed meaning in life of people with Long Covid: a qualitative study. Perceptions of healthcare providers on benefits, risks and barriers regarding intradialytic exercise among haemodialysis patients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1