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

Background:  Psychosis, characterised by altered perceptions or interpretations of reality, remains a contested area. Lately, perspectives and conceptualisations of psychosis that have traditionally been more peripheral have gained greater recognition. Both the British Psychological Society and Critical Psychiatry Network have highlighted some contentious areas in recent publications.    Aims:  The aim was to use critical narrative analysis to consider what facilitates and inhibits medical professionals with clinical experience of psychosis to engage with the topic of psychosis as a contentious area.    Method:  Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 medical professionals, who were at trainee or qualified level with a minimum of 6 months’ clinical experience within psychiatry, across three Trusts within the United Kingdom. This purposive sample had a diverse range of perspectives regarding psychosis. Critical narrative analysis comprising six distinct stages, informed the analysis.    Results:  Participants positioned themselves broadly within one of three groups: biological psychiatrists, critical psychiatrists and those more conflicted. Narrative analysis was undertaken for each participant before being integrated for this article. The research highlighted several factors which either limit or facilitate opportunities within the psychiatric profession to engage with a plurality of views regarding psychosis. These included the significance of power and hierarchy within the profession, the role of dialogue and the prevalence of reflexivity within the profession.    Conclusion:  A pattern was identified of psychiatrists generally associating with like-minded others and not engaging with wider evidence regarding psychosis, partly as a result of the inherent threats to the power and hierarchy of the profession. This led to new ideas being widely unknown or undervalued, potentially to the disservice of clinical practice.

A critical narrative analysis of psychiatrists’ engagement with psychosis as a contentious area