From diagnostic conformity to co-narration of self-insight in mental health care

N. J. Ermers, G. E. H. I. Franssen, F. E. Scheepers, N. van Sambeek, S. M. van Geelen
{"title":"From diagnostic conformity to co-narration of self-insight in mental health care","authors":"N. J. Ermers, G. E. H. I. Franssen, F. E. Scheepers, N. van Sambeek, S. M. van Geelen","doi":"10.1038/s44220-024-00284-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In mental health care, large differences in perspective between individuals with psychosis and professionals are an everyday reality. Such discrepancies become apparent in the substantial number of patients judged to lack illness insight. This Perspective argues that ‘illness insight’ typically refers to patient conformity to medical views rather than denoting true understanding into their condition. We outline limitations of the current conceptualization of illness insight (‘clinical insight’) and discuss an alternative, narrative understanding, drawing on literature from various academic disciplines. After addressing definitional ambiguities, etiological complexities and methodological inconsistencies inherent to the current understanding, this paper highlights several normative, cultural and ethical issues surrounding clinical insight. A narrative approach allows patients to find more meaningful explanations that resonate better with the complexity of their experiences and tackles other problems identified with clinical insight. We argue that narrative insight is inherently co-constructed, emphasizing the shared meaning-making process between individuals with psychosis and professionals. This Perspective seeks to identify the limitations of the ‘clinical insight’ construct discussing an alternative narrative approach for individuals with psychosis.","PeriodicalId":74247,"journal":{"name":"Nature mental health","volume":"2 8","pages":"883-892"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-024-00284-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In mental health care, large differences in perspective between individuals with psychosis and professionals are an everyday reality. Such discrepancies become apparent in the substantial number of patients judged to lack illness insight. This Perspective argues that ‘illness insight’ typically refers to patient conformity to medical views rather than denoting true understanding into their condition. We outline limitations of the current conceptualization of illness insight (‘clinical insight’) and discuss an alternative, narrative understanding, drawing on literature from various academic disciplines. After addressing definitional ambiguities, etiological complexities and methodological inconsistencies inherent to the current understanding, this paper highlights several normative, cultural and ethical issues surrounding clinical insight. A narrative approach allows patients to find more meaningful explanations that resonate better with the complexity of their experiences and tackles other problems identified with clinical insight. We argue that narrative insight is inherently co-constructed, emphasizing the shared meaning-making process between individuals with psychosis and professionals. This Perspective seeks to identify the limitations of the ‘clinical insight’ construct discussing an alternative narrative approach for individuals with psychosis.
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
从符合诊断到共同讲述心理健康护理中的自我见解
在心理健康护理中,精神病患者与专业人员之间在观点上的巨大差异是一个日常现实。这种差异在大量被判定为缺乏对疾病的洞察力的患者身上显而易见。本视角认为,"疾病洞察力 "通常是指患者对医学观点的顺从,而非对自身病情的真正理解。我们概述了当前疾病洞察力概念化("临床洞察力")的局限性,并借鉴各学科的文献,讨论了另一种叙事性理解。在讨论了当前理解中固有的定义模糊性、病因复杂性和方法不一致性之后,本文强调了围绕临床洞察力的几个规范、文化和伦理问题。叙事方法可以让患者找到更有意义的解释,从而更好地与他们的复杂经历产生共鸣,并解决临床洞察力中发现的其他问题。我们认为,叙事性洞察力本质上是共同构建的,强调的是精神病患者与专业人员之间共同的意义生成过程。本视角试图找出 "临床洞察力 "建构的局限性,为精神病患者讨论另一种叙事方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving refugee mental health through resilience and research A health-equity framework for tailoring digital non-pharmacological interventions in aging Strengthening autonomy in mental health care through a relational approach A dual-continuum framework to evaluate climate change impacts on mental health New insights from gene expression patterns on the neurobiological basis of risky behavior
×
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