[精神病医生使用生活经验:定性实证探索]。

Q4 Medicine Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie Pub Date : 2024-01-01
S Karbouniaris, M Boomsma-van Holten, A Oostindiër, C C Prins-Aardema, P C C Raats, A Weerman, J P Wilken, T A Abma
{"title":"[精神病医生使用生活经验:定性实证探索]。","authors":"S Karbouniaris, M Boomsma-van Holten, A Oostindiër, C C Prins-Aardema, P C C Raats, A Weerman, J P Wilken, T A Abma","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Psychiatrists generally make little use of lived experiences in addition to clinical and scientific knowledge, even while its use may make services more humane.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to explore psychiatrists&rsquo; lived experience perspectives and their considerations when integrating the personal into the professional domain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of a qualitative participatory research approach, peer supervision sessions were followed for 2 years and additional interviews and a focus group were organised which were then analysed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The participating psychiatrists had three main considerations for using their own experiences in clinical practice: personal, professional and clinical relevance. We identified 11 facilitating and 9 hindering factors in working with lived experiences related to clinical practice. In addition to the high workload and responsibility as a practitioner, a barrier is the lack of experience and recognition of this as a type of knowledge within the profession, including misconceptions about possible harmful effects. Facilitating factors included the opportunity to share with peers, a warm working relationship with patients and being able to create openness and destigmatisation among colleagues.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Psychiatrists appreciated the integration of lived experiences into the professional domain, even though still in its infancy. The peer supervision setting in this study was experienced as a safe space to share personal experiences with vulnerability and explore how they can harness lived experiences in the work context.</p>","PeriodicalId":23100,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie","volume":"66 3","pages":"144-150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[The use of lived experiences among psychiatrists: a qualitative empirical exploration].\",\"authors\":\"S Karbouniaris, M Boomsma-van Holten, A Oostindiër, C C Prins-Aardema, P C C Raats, A Weerman, J P Wilken, T A Abma\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Psychiatrists generally make little use of lived experiences in addition to clinical and scientific knowledge, even while its use may make services more humane.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to explore psychiatrists&rsquo; lived experience perspectives and their considerations when integrating the personal into the professional domain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of a qualitative participatory research approach, peer supervision sessions were followed for 2 years and additional interviews and a focus group were organised which were then analysed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The participating psychiatrists had three main considerations for using their own experiences in clinical practice: personal, professional and clinical relevance. We identified 11 facilitating and 9 hindering factors in working with lived experiences related to clinical practice. In addition to the high workload and responsibility as a practitioner, a barrier is the lack of experience and recognition of this as a type of knowledge within the profession, including misconceptions about possible harmful effects. Facilitating factors included the opportunity to share with peers, a warm working relationship with patients and being able to create openness and destigmatisation among colleagues.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Psychiatrists appreciated the integration of lived experiences into the professional domain, even though still in its infancy. The peer supervision setting in this study was experienced as a safe space to share personal experiences with vulnerability and explore how they can harness lived experiences in the work context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie\",\"volume\":\"66 3\",\"pages\":\"144-150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:本研究旨在探讨精神科医生的生活经验观点,以及他们在将个人经验融入专业领域时所考虑的因素:作为定性参与式研究方法的一部分,我们对同行督导课程进行了为期两年的跟踪,并组织了额外的访谈和焦点小组,然后对访谈和焦点小组进行了专题分析:结果:参与研究的精神科医生在临床实践中运用自身经验时主要考虑了三个方面:个人、专业和临床相关性。我们发现了在临床实践中利用亲身经历的 11 个促进因素和 9 个阻碍因素。除了作为从业人员的高工作量和责任外,一个障碍是缺乏经验,也没有认识到这是专业内的一种知识,包括对可能有害影响的误解。促进因素包括与同行分享的机会、与患者之间温暖的工作关系,以及能够在同事之间营造开放和消除污名的氛围:精神科医生对将生活经验融入专业领域表示赞赏,尽管这仍处于起步阶段。在本研究中,同侪督导环境被视为一个安全的空间,让他们可以分享个人的脆弱经历,并探索如何在工作中利用生活经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[The use of lived experiences among psychiatrists: a qualitative empirical exploration].

Background: Psychiatrists generally make little use of lived experiences in addition to clinical and scientific knowledge, even while its use may make services more humane.

Aim: This study aims to explore psychiatrists’ lived experience perspectives and their considerations when integrating the personal into the professional domain.

Methods: As part of a qualitative participatory research approach, peer supervision sessions were followed for 2 years and additional interviews and a focus group were organised which were then analysed thematically.

Results: The participating psychiatrists had three main considerations for using their own experiences in clinical practice: personal, professional and clinical relevance. We identified 11 facilitating and 9 hindering factors in working with lived experiences related to clinical practice. In addition to the high workload and responsibility as a practitioner, a barrier is the lack of experience and recognition of this as a type of knowledge within the profession, including misconceptions about possible harmful effects. Facilitating factors included the opportunity to share with peers, a warm working relationship with patients and being able to create openness and destigmatisation among colleagues.

Conclusion: Psychiatrists appreciated the integration of lived experiences into the professional domain, even though still in its infancy. The peer supervision setting in this study was experienced as a safe space to share personal experiences with vulnerability and explore how they can harness lived experiences in the work context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie
Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
118
期刊最新文献
[Compulsory care for a mental incompetent pregnant woman: a case-report]. [Erotomania as a symptom of pathological grief]. [The nurse practitioner as responsible clinician: opportunities and challenges]. [Underexposed consequences of assisted death on psychiatric grounds for mental health care]. [Verplichte zorg bij een wilsonbekwame zwangere: maatwerk met respect voor mensenrechten].
×
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