English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Advocates of a biomedical approach have argued that: it provides an evidence-based approach to classifying and understanding the causes of problems; adopting a biomedical understanding will reduce stigma; and biomedical interventions are effective and evidence-based. This article reviews the literature and finds not only that there is little or no evidence for these assumptions but that, in fact, the research evidence points to the need for the kind of alternative approach proposed by the PTMF. Alternative causal models which recognize the role of psychosocial adversities are described and alternative approaches to diagnostic classification and destigmatisation programs are suggested and innovative attempts to redesign services in a manner consistent with the PTMF approach are described. The article concludes by discussing implications for policy-level change.

The Power Threat Meaning Framework: Addressing Adversity, Challenging Prejudice and Stigma, and Transforming Services