IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v59y2013i2p107-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient participation in mental healthcare: When is it difficult? A qualitative study of users and providers in a mental health hospital in Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Marit Solbjør
  • Marit By Rise
  • Heidi Westerlund
  • Aslak Steinsbekk

Abstract

Background: In western countries, patient participation is requested in policies on mental health services. Participation is built on ideas of democracy and individual responsibility. Mental illness has, however, been characterized by its irrational features. Aim: To investigate mental health service users’ and providers’ views on patient participation during episodes of mental illness. Methods: Qualitative interview study with 20 users and 25 staff from a mental health hospital in central Norway. Results: Both users and professionals saw poor illness phases as an obstacle to patient participation. Lack of insight, lack of verbal ability and difficulty c ooperating made participation difficult. During such phases, patient participation was redefined. There was a shift in responsibility where professionals took charge through strategies of providing information, motivating patients and reducing choices. Respect and dignity were maintained and not redefined. Conclusions: In poor phases of mental illness, patient participation was redefined and weighed against what was perceived to be the patient’s best interest.

Suggested Citation

  • Marit Solbjør & Marit By Rise & Heidi Westerlund & Aslak Steinsbekk, 2013. "Patient participation in mental healthcare: When is it difficult? A qualitative study of users and providers in a mental health hospital in Norway," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 59(2), pages 107-113, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:59:y:2013:i:2:p:107-113
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764011423464
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764011423464
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764011423464?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salmon, Peter & Hall, George M, 2003. "Patient empowerment and control: a psychological discourse in the service of medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1969-1980, November.
    2. Koekkoek, B. & Hutschemaekers, G. & van Meijel, B. & Schene, A., 2011. "How do patients come to be seen as 'difficult'?: A mixed-methods study in community mental health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 504-512, February.
    3. Peerbhoy, Denise & Hall, George M. & Parker, Christopher & Shenkin, Alan & Salmon, Peter, 1998. "Patients' reactions to attempts to increase passive or active coping with surgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 595-601, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marit B Rise & Heidi Westerlund & Dagfinn Bjørgen & Aslak Steinsbekk, 2014. "Safely cared for or empowered in mental health care? Yes, please," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 60(2), pages 134-138, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aujoulat, Isabelle & Marcolongo, Renzo & Bonadiman, Leopoldo & Deccache, Alain, 2008. "Reconsidering patient empowerment in chronic illness: A critique of models of self-efficacy and bodily control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(5), pages 1228-1239, March.
    2. May, Carl & Rapley, Tim & Moreira, Tiago & Finch, Tracy & Heaven, Ben, 2006. "Technogovernance: Evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 1022-1030, February.
    3. Kinderman, Peter & Setzu, Erika & Lobban, Fiona & Salmon, Peter, 2006. "Illness beliefs in schizophrenia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1900-1911, October.
    4. Sulzer, Sandra H., 2015. "Does “difficult patient” status contribute to de facto demedicalization? The case of borderline personality disorder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 82-89.
    5. Marie Falahee & Gwenda Simons & Karim Raza & Rebecca J. Stack, 2018. "Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of risk in the context of genetic testing for the prediction of chronic disease: a qualitative metasynthesis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 129-166, February.
    6. Chinn, Deborah, 2011. "Critical health literacy: A review and critical analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 60-67, July.
    7. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    8. O'Cathain, Alicia & Goode, Jackie & Luff, Donna & Strangleman, Tim & Hanlon, Gerard & Greatbatch, David, 2005. "Does NHS Direct empower patients?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1761-1771, October.
    9. Thille, Patricia & Ward, Natalie & Russell, Grant, 2014. "Self-management support in primary care: Enactments, disruptions, and conversational consequences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 97-105.
    10. Lucas, Henry, 2015. "New technology and illness self-management: Potential relevance for resource-poor populations in Asia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 145-153.
    11. Lemire, Marc & Sicotte, Claude & Paré, Guy, 2008. "Internet use and the logics of personal empowerment in health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 130-140, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:59:y:2013:i:2:p:107-113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.