Lived experience at the core: A classification system for risk-taking behaviours in bipolar.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2024-08-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076241269580
Daisy Harvey, Paul Rayson, Fiona Lobban, Jasper Palmier-Claus, Steven Jones
{"title":"Lived experience at the core: A classification system for risk-taking behaviours in bipolar.","authors":"Daisy Harvey, Paul Rayson, Fiona Lobban, Jasper Palmier-Claus, Steven Jones","doi":"10.1177/20552076241269580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Clinical observations suggest that individuals with a diagnosis of bipolar face difficulties regulating emotions and impairments to their cognitive processing, which can contribute to high-risk behaviours. However, there are few studies which explore the types of risk-taking behaviour that manifest in reality and evidence suggests that there is currently not enough support for the management of these behaviours. This study examined the types of risk-taking behaviours described by people who live with bipolar and their access to support for these behaviours.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with <i>n = </i>18 participants with a lived experience of bipolar and <i>n </i>= 5 healthcare professionals. The interviews comprised open-ended questions and a Likert-item questionnaire. The responses to the interview questions were analysed using content analysis and corpus linguistic methods to develop a classification system of risk-taking behaviours. The Likert-item questionnaire was analysed statistically and insights from the questionnaire were incorporated into the classification system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our classification system includes 39 reported risk-taking behaviours which we manually inferred into six domains of risk-taking. Corpus linguistic and qualitative analysis of the interview data demonstrate that people need more support for risk-taking behaviours and that aside from suicide, self-harm and excessive spending, many behaviours are not routinely monitored.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that people living with bipolar report the need for improved access to psychologically informed care, and that a standardised classification system or risk-taking questionnaire could act as a useful elicitation tool for guiding conversations around risk-taking to ensure that opportunities for intervention are not missed. We have also presented a novel methodological framework which demonstrates the utility of computational linguistic methods for the analysis of health research data.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":"10 ","pages":"20552076241269580"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11301771/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241269580","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Clinical observations suggest that individuals with a diagnosis of bipolar face difficulties regulating emotions and impairments to their cognitive processing, which can contribute to high-risk behaviours. However, there are few studies which explore the types of risk-taking behaviour that manifest in reality and evidence suggests that there is currently not enough support for the management of these behaviours. This study examined the types of risk-taking behaviours described by people who live with bipolar and their access to support for these behaviours.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with n = 18 participants with a lived experience of bipolar and n = 5 healthcare professionals. The interviews comprised open-ended questions and a Likert-item questionnaire. The responses to the interview questions were analysed using content analysis and corpus linguistic methods to develop a classification system of risk-taking behaviours. The Likert-item questionnaire was analysed statistically and insights from the questionnaire were incorporated into the classification system.

Results: Our classification system includes 39 reported risk-taking behaviours which we manually inferred into six domains of risk-taking. Corpus linguistic and qualitative analysis of the interview data demonstrate that people need more support for risk-taking behaviours and that aside from suicide, self-harm and excessive spending, many behaviours are not routinely monitored.

Conclusion: This study shows that people living with bipolar report the need for improved access to psychologically informed care, and that a standardised classification system or risk-taking questionnaire could act as a useful elicitation tool for guiding conversations around risk-taking to ensure that opportunities for intervention are not missed. We have also presented a novel methodological framework which demonstrates the utility of computational linguistic methods for the analysis of health research data.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
以生活经验为核心:躁郁症患者冒险行为的分类系统。
目的:临床观察表明,被诊断出患有躁郁症的人在调节情绪方面会遇到困难,他们的认知处理能力也会受到影响,这可能会导致高危行为。然而,很少有研究探讨现实中表现出来的冒险行为类型,而且有证据表明,目前对这些行为的管理还缺乏足够的支持。本研究探讨了躁郁症患者所描述的冒险行为类型,以及他们在这些行为方面所获得的支持:对 n = 18 名有躁郁症生活经历的参与者和 n = 5 名医护人员进行了半结构化访谈。访谈包括开放式问题和李克特项目问卷。我们使用内容分析法和语料库语言学方法对访谈问题的回答进行了分析,从而建立了一个冒险行为分类系统。对李克特项目问卷进行了统计分析,并将问卷中的见解纳入分类系统:结果:我们的分类系统包括 39 种报告的冒险行为,我们通过人工推断将其分为六个冒险领域。对访谈数据进行的语料库语言学分析和定性分析表明,人们在冒险行为方面需要更多支持,除了自杀、自残和过度消费外,许多行为都没有得到常规监测:这项研究表明,躁郁症患者表示需要更好地获得心理护理,而标准化的分类系统或冒险行为调查问卷可以作为一种有用的诱导工具,引导人们围绕冒险行为展开对话,以确保不错失干预机会。我们还提出了一个新颖的方法框架,展示了计算语言学方法在分析健康研究数据方面的实用性。
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
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
期刊最新文献
Delivering and evaluating digital therapeutic interventions to increase physical activity: Formative testing of engagement, compliance, and adherence. When the therapist hallucinates: AI, psychedelics, and the risks of unsupervised digital mental health care. Evaluating the quality, reliability, and diagnostic risk of ADHD content on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis. Transforming qualitative research: The AQUATIC approach to AI-driven data analysis. Developing a clinical decision support tool for stratifying stroke risk in patients presenting with dizziness to the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study.
×
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:604180095
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