在心理健康服务中做同伴工作:拆解不同的生活经历。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Sociology Review Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-01-19 DOI:10.1080/14461242.2020.1865183
Malene Lue Kessing
{"title":"在心理健康服务中做同伴工作:拆解不同的生活经历。","authors":"Malene Lue Kessing","doi":"10.1080/14461242.2020.1865183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mental health services are increasingly employing peer workers (PWs), individuals who have lived experiences with mental health problems, to support patients and be part of mental health care teams. While the employment of PWs continues to increase, little is known about how the function unfolds in practice. This paper explores the broader context in which the PWs navigate and the concrete outcomes and everyday issues that exist at the individual level. Methodologically, the paper draws on 22 interviews with PWs employed in the mental health services in Denmark. Theoretically, it combines Lipsky's (1980) theory on street-level bureaucrats with sociological discussions concerning the lay-expert divide. The analysis shows that PWs experience both role ambiguity and goal uncertainty and that they use substantial discretion in determining the nature, amount and quality of their peer practices. This - combined with the PWs' diverse lived experiences - calls for a heterogeneous understanding of peer work and therefore the analysis presents three categories of peer workers: PWs as (1) a representative of patients' lifeworld, (2) an interdisciplinary professional and (3) an 'expert by experience'. These categories display PWs different enactments of their lived experiences and reveal ambiguities tied to the lay-expert divide.</p>","PeriodicalId":46833,"journal":{"name":"Health Sociology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14461242.2020.1865183","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Doing peer work in mental health services: Unpacking different enactments of lived experiences.\",\"authors\":\"Malene Lue Kessing\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14461242.2020.1865183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Mental health services are increasingly employing peer workers (PWs), individuals who have lived experiences with mental health problems, to support patients and be part of mental health care teams. While the employment of PWs continues to increase, little is known about how the function unfolds in practice. This paper explores the broader context in which the PWs navigate and the concrete outcomes and everyday issues that exist at the individual level. Methodologically, the paper draws on 22 interviews with PWs employed in the mental health services in Denmark. Theoretically, it combines Lipsky's (1980) theory on street-level bureaucrats with sociological discussions concerning the lay-expert divide. The analysis shows that PWs experience both role ambiguity and goal uncertainty and that they use substantial discretion in determining the nature, amount and quality of their peer practices. This - combined with the PWs' diverse lived experiences - calls for a heterogeneous understanding of peer work and therefore the analysis presents three categories of peer workers: PWs as (1) a representative of patients' lifeworld, (2) an interdisciplinary professional and (3) an 'expert by experience'. These categories display PWs different enactments of their lived experiences and reveal ambiguities tied to the lay-expert divide.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Sociology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14461242.2020.1865183\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Sociology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2020.1865183\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Sociology Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2020.1865183","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

精神卫生服务越来越多地雇用有过精神卫生问题经历的同侪工作者(PWs)来支持病人并成为精神卫生保健团队的一部分。虽然PWs的使用不断增加,但人们对其功能在实践中如何发挥知之甚少。本文探讨了pw所处的更广泛的背景,以及个人层面上存在的具体结果和日常问题。在方法上,本文对丹麦精神卫生服务机构雇用的22名战俘进行了访谈。从理论上讲,它将利普斯基(Lipsky, 1980)关于街头官僚的理论与关于外行-专家鸿沟的社会学讨论结合起来。分析表明,pw经历了角色模糊和目标不确定性,并且他们在确定同伴实践的性质、数量和质量时使用了大量的自由裁量权。这一点,再加上PWs的不同生活经历,要求对同伴工作有不同的理解,因此分析提出了三类同伴工作者:PWs是(1)患者生活世界的代表,(2)跨学科专业人员和(3)“经验专家”。这些类别显示了PWs对其生活经历的不同演绎,并揭示了与外行-专家划分相关的模糊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Doing peer work in mental health services: Unpacking different enactments of lived experiences.

Mental health services are increasingly employing peer workers (PWs), individuals who have lived experiences with mental health problems, to support patients and be part of mental health care teams. While the employment of PWs continues to increase, little is known about how the function unfolds in practice. This paper explores the broader context in which the PWs navigate and the concrete outcomes and everyday issues that exist at the individual level. Methodologically, the paper draws on 22 interviews with PWs employed in the mental health services in Denmark. Theoretically, it combines Lipsky's (1980) theory on street-level bureaucrats with sociological discussions concerning the lay-expert divide. The analysis shows that PWs experience both role ambiguity and goal uncertainty and that they use substantial discretion in determining the nature, amount and quality of their peer practices. This - combined with the PWs' diverse lived experiences - calls for a heterogeneous understanding of peer work and therefore the analysis presents three categories of peer workers: PWs as (1) a representative of patients' lifeworld, (2) an interdisciplinary professional and (3) an 'expert by experience'. These categories display PWs different enactments of their lived experiences and reveal ambiguities tied to the lay-expert divide.

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
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: An international, scholarly peer-reviewed journal, Health Sociology Review explores the contribution of sociology and sociological research methods to understanding health and illness; to health policy, promotion and practice; and to equity, social justice, social policy and social work. Health Sociology Review is published in association with The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) under the editorship of Eileen Willis. Health Sociology Review publishes original theoretical and research articles, literature reviews, special issues, symposia, commentaries and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Drug consumption stigma and patient legitimacy: experiences of people who use drugs seeking care for chronic non-cancer pain in Nigeria. Gut feelings and lived experiences: a qualitative study of 'anti-diet' dietitians' and psychologists' motivations and experiences regarding the weight-neutral approach. Shifting solutions: tracking transformations of drugs, health and the 'human' through human rights processes in Australia. Masculine enhancement as health or pathology: gender and optimisation discourses in health promotion materials on performance and image-enhancing drugs (PIEDs). The good pain patient: a critical evaluation of patients' self-presentations in specialist pain clinics.
×
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