↓ Skip to main content

The quest for choice and the need for relational care in mental health work

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
The quest for choice and the need for relational care in mental health work
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11019-014-9563-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Børge Baklien, Rob Bongaardt

Abstract

Since the revolutionary mood of the 1960s, patient-centered mental health care and a research emphasis on service users as experts by experience have emerged hand in hand with a view of service users as consumers. What happens to knowledge derived from firsthand experience when mental health users become experts and actively choose care? What kind of perspective do service users pursue on psychological distress? These are important questions in a field where psychiatric expertise on mental illness is socially structured and constrained as an intra-personal disturbance of the mind. We argue that experience experts have lost a coherent perspective on care and health. We illustrate this by rationally reconstructing how the interpersonal view of mental health first gained and then lost coherence between the conception of mental health, the practice of mental health care, and the user experience. Harry Stack Sullivan's interpersonal theory was a paradigm case for such coherence. The inclusion of mental health consumers as 'experts by experience' in the mental health field took place at the cost of Sullivan's coherent interpersonal theory. Service users who interact side by side with medical experts as experience experts are constrained by the evidence-based imperative and consumerism. Service users are caught up in a race among experts to gain knowledge about mental problems from a third-person perspective instead of from first-person experience. To make a contribution service users have more to gain from a research approach that appreciates that they are persons among persons rather than experts among experts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 5 17%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 23%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Philosophy 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2014.
All research outputs
#18,371,959
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#470
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,008
of 227,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.