4.1 Article

A Psychoeducational Workshop for the Parents of Young Voice Hearers: A Preliminary Investigation into Acceptability and Outcomes in an NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/13591045231167969

关键词

hearing voices; auditory hallucinations; young people; parents; psychoeducation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the acceptability and outcomes of a psychoeducation workshop for the parents of young people experiencing distressing voices in a UK CAMHS. The results showed that the workshop was acceptable and helpful for the parents, but some adaptations are needed.
Background: Hearing voices is a common experience in young people and can be associated with distress, self-harm, and an increased risk of attempting suicide. Many parents lack confidence in supporting young people who are distressed by voices. However, there are currently no evidence-based interventions to support the parents of young voice hearers. Method: This was an uncontrolled study exploring the preliminary acceptability and outcomes of a psychoeducation workshop for the parents of young people experiencing distressing voices within a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) in the UK's National Health Service. Results: A total of 21 parents consented to participate, 15 attended a workshop and 10 provided complete data sets. Five workshops were delivered across a seven-month period. Qualitative feedback was suggestive of acceptability and highlighted possible adaptations in relation to inclusivity, content focus and delivery format. Participants reported increased confidence and improved attitudes and beliefs towards voice hearing. Conclusions: The findings from this study suggest that a psychoeducational workshop within a CAMHS context can be acceptable and helpful for parents of young people with distressing voice hearing experiences. Adaptations to the workshop are required to maximise inclusion, engagement, and outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据