心理健康专家对儿童和青少年边缘型人格障碍诊断的看法:一项q -方法学研究

Gemma Vickers, H. Combes, Jennie Lonsdale
{"title":"心理健康专家对儿童和青少年边缘型人格障碍诊断的看法:一项q -方法学研究","authors":"Gemma Vickers, H. Combes, Jennie Lonsdale","doi":"10.1108/jmhtep-09-2021-0104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a controversial psychiatric diagnosis. Despite an increasing amount of research looking at the BPD diagnosis when applied to young people, there is limited understanding of the key viewpoints of mental health professionals working with young people in the UK. This research aims to use Q-methodology to contribute to understanding the multiple views of the diagnosis.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nQ-statements about views of the BPD diagnosis were selected from relevant journals, internet sites and social media platforms and were validated by a Q-methodology research group, the research supervisors and an online group of individuals with BPD. Q-sorts were then used to explore the viewpoints of 27 mental health professionals in the UK working with children and adolescents. Analysis of the data was completed using Q-methodology analysis software.\n\n\nFindings\nThree main factors emerged from the data, explaining 66% of the variance. Of the 27 participants, 24 loaded onto these three factors, defined as: harmful not helpful; language and optimism; and caution and specialist services. Three Q-sorts did not load significantly onto any one factor.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThere appears to be at least three ways of understanding the BPD diagnosis for young people. It may be useful for clinicians to consider and share their own viewpoint, be open to difference and formulate difficulties from an individual perspective.\n","PeriodicalId":75090,"journal":{"name":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mental health professionals’ views of the borderline personality disorder diagnosis for children and young people: a Q-methodological study\",\"authors\":\"Gemma Vickers, H. Combes, Jennie Lonsdale\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jmhtep-09-2021-0104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a controversial psychiatric diagnosis. Despite an increasing amount of research looking at the BPD diagnosis when applied to young people, there is limited understanding of the key viewpoints of mental health professionals working with young people in the UK. This research aims to use Q-methodology to contribute to understanding the multiple views of the diagnosis.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nQ-statements about views of the BPD diagnosis were selected from relevant journals, internet sites and social media platforms and were validated by a Q-methodology research group, the research supervisors and an online group of individuals with BPD. Q-sorts were then used to explore the viewpoints of 27 mental health professionals in the UK working with children and adolescents. Analysis of the data was completed using Q-methodology analysis software.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThree main factors emerged from the data, explaining 66% of the variance. Of the 27 participants, 24 loaded onto these three factors, defined as: harmful not helpful; language and optimism; and caution and specialist services. Three Q-sorts did not load significantly onto any one factor.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThere appears to be at least three ways of understanding the BPD diagnosis for young people. It may be useful for clinicians to consider and share their own viewpoint, be open to difference and formulate difficulties from an individual perspective.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":75090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmhtep-09-2021-0104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmhtep-09-2021-0104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的边缘型人格障碍(BPD)是一种有争议的精神病学诊断。尽管越来越多的研究将BPD诊断应用于年轻人,但人们对英国与年轻人一起工作的心理健康专业人员的关键观点的理解有限。本研究旨在使用q -方法学来帮助理解诊断的多种观点。设计/方法/方法-关于BPD诊断观点的陈述选自相关期刊、网站和社交媒体平台,并由q方法研究小组、研究主管和在线BPD患者小组进行验证。然后,研究人员用q -排序来探讨英国27名从事儿童和青少年工作的心理健康专家的观点。采用q -方法学分析软件对数据进行分析。数据中出现了三个主要因素,解释了66%的差异。在27名参与者中,有24人受到这三个因素的影响,定义为:有害无益;语言和乐观;还有谨慎和专业服务。三个q排序对任何一个因子都没有显著的负荷。原创性/价值似乎至少有三种方法来理解年轻人的BPD诊断。对于临床医生来说,考虑和分享他们自己的观点,对差异持开放态度,从个人角度制定困难可能是有用的。
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
Mental health professionals’ views of the borderline personality disorder diagnosis for children and young people: a Q-methodological study
Purpose Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a controversial psychiatric diagnosis. Despite an increasing amount of research looking at the BPD diagnosis when applied to young people, there is limited understanding of the key viewpoints of mental health professionals working with young people in the UK. This research aims to use Q-methodology to contribute to understanding the multiple views of the diagnosis. Design/methodology/approach Q-statements about views of the BPD diagnosis were selected from relevant journals, internet sites and social media platforms and were validated by a Q-methodology research group, the research supervisors and an online group of individuals with BPD. Q-sorts were then used to explore the viewpoints of 27 mental health professionals in the UK working with children and adolescents. Analysis of the data was completed using Q-methodology analysis software. Findings Three main factors emerged from the data, explaining 66% of the variance. Of the 27 participants, 24 loaded onto these three factors, defined as: harmful not helpful; language and optimism; and caution and specialist services. Three Q-sorts did not load significantly onto any one factor. Originality/value There appears to be at least three ways of understanding the BPD diagnosis for young people. It may be useful for clinicians to consider and share their own viewpoint, be open to difference and formulate difficulties from an individual perspective.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mindful self-compassion training program in the family caregivers of patients with cancer: a quasi-experimental study Pedagogical considerations for enhancing peer support training in an online university environment Comparing the attitudes of junior doctors towards mental and physical ill-health: a survey of trainees in North London “Improved access, delayed accreditation, low recognition”: perspectives of mental health educators, preceptors and students on the Kintampo Project in Ghana Analysis and mapping of scientific literature on virtual and augmented reality technologies used in the context of mental health disorders (1980 – 2021)
×
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