4.1 Article

What Do People with Psychosis Think Caused their Psychosis? A Q Methodology Study

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL AND COGNITIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 11-24

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1352465808004955

关键词

Formulation; psychosis; Q methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A key component of cognitive therapy for psychosis is the development of a meaningful and shared formulation of the onset of the psychosis. Therapists bring all understanding of the development of psychotic symptoms based oil theoretical models and try to marry these with the person's own experience and explanations. However, an important question is whether this understanding is compatible with the explanations held by the client. Aims: This study investigated what factors people believed led to the onset of their psychosis. Method: A Q set of potential causes for psychosis was identified front a literature search and interviews with people with differing experiences of psychosis. From this, 58 potential causes of psychosis were identified. Twenty-one people who had experienced a psychotic breakdown then ranked these explanations as possible causes. Results: Using Principle Components Analysis four main factors were identified as perceived causal factors for the onset of psychosis. These factors were described as: a) drug usage; b) traumatic experiences ill adulthood c) personal sensitivity: and d) developmental vulnerabilities. Conclusions: This study revealed that people with psychosis have different explanatory frameworks for the onset of their difficulties. This work is helpful as this effort to understand the person's own understanding of their problems is a first stepping stone towards a collaboratively generated formulation that may be helpful in building a therapeutic alliance, engagement in treatment, and ultimately ill improved outcome. It is likely that these different explanatory frameworks could lend themselves to different treatment approaches.

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