| Literature DB >> 31771532 |
Samson Tse1, Winnie W Y Yuen2,3, Greg Murray4, Larry Davidson5, Queenie Lai2, Alice Kan2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge construction is a form of communication in which people can work individually or collaboratively. Peer support services have been adopted by the public psychiatric and social welfare service as a regular form of intervention since 2015 in Hong Kong. Peer-based services can help people with bipolar disorder (BD) deal with the implications of the diagnosis, the way in which individuals with BD receive treatment, and the lifestyle changes that take place as a result of the diagnosis. Through a qualitative paradigm, this study aims to examine how individuals with BD use technical and expert-by-experience knowledge.Entities:
Keywords: Bipolar disorder; Health communication; Knowledge transfer; Mental illness; Mood disorders; Peer support service; Recovery
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31771532 PMCID: PMC6878707 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-019-2357-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Continuum of technical knowledge and expert-by-experience knowledge
| Technical knowledge | Expert-by-experience knowledge | |
|---|---|---|
| Features | • Scientific • Systematic and well-documented • Common languages shared across multiple professionals • Findings are not always relevant to service users’ lived experience • It greatly depends on practitioners’ ability to understand a perspective other than their own and to respond empathetically | • Acquired through experience: “been there, done that” • High ecological validity, very practical • It does not always generalize to other people’s circumstances • It depends on the service setting, training, and skills of PSWs, such as interpersonal skills, adjustment to the new PSWs role |
| Challenges | • Combining technical and expert-by-experience knowledge in the search for personal recovery is not always a straight-forward process. The two forms of knowledge sometimes work in a complementary manner, but at other times they work in a more tensioned, question-raising way that can broaden our understanding of how knowledge is interpreted by multiple parties (e.g., mental health practitioners, clients or family members) • There is a pressing need to move from a situation in which health knowledge construction is hierarchical to one in which it occurs by consensus, horizontally. Such a shift would allow healthcare professionals and clients to contribute to the co-construction of knowledge that forms the basis for decision-making in the recovery journey. | |
Characteristics of the study sample
| Participant number | Gender | Age | Year of diagnosis | Settingsa where the participants were recruited | Main types of peer support services receivedb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SU01 | F | 55 | 20 | ICCMW | Recovery group led /co-led by PSW |
| SU02 | F | 48 | 30 | ICCMW | Recovery group led /co-led by PSW |
| SU03 | M | 52 | 16 | In-patient Hospital | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU04 | M | 26 | 10 | ICCMW | Phone conversation |
| SU05 | F | 42 | 16 | ICCMW | Phone conversation |
| SU06 | F | 58 | 31 | In-patient Hospital | Recovery group led /co-led by PSW |
| SU07 | F | 40 | 18 | Community | Group sharing |
| SU08 | F | 59 | 33 | Community | Group sharing |
| SU09 | M | 39 | 20 | In-patient Hospital | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU10 | F | 62 | 26 | In-patient Hospital | Group sharing |
| SU11 | F | 26 | 8 | In-patient Hospital | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU12 | M | 36 | 24 | Community | Group sharing |
| SU13 | M | 63 | 36 | Community | Group sharing |
| SU14 | F | 54 | 37 | Community | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU15 | F | 53 | 15 | Community | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU16 | M | 46 | 30 | Community | Group sharing |
| SU17 | F | 49 | 16 | Community | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU18 | M | 45 | 28 | Community | Group sharing |
| SU19 | F | 42 | 18 | Community | Group sharing |
| SU20 | M | 27 | 5 | In-patient Hospital | One-to-one in person conversation; Phone conversation |
| SU21 | F | 48 | 29 | In-patient Hospital | One-to-one in person conversation; Recovery group led/co-led by PSW |
| SU22 | F | 47 | 15 | ICCMW | Phone conversation |
| SU23 | F | 54 | 19 | ICCMW | Leisure group |
| SU24 | M | 66 | 20 | ICCMW | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU25 | F | 27 | 12 | ICCMW | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU26 | F | 52 | 24 | ICCMW | Recovery group led /co-led by PSW |
| SU27 | F | 53 | 37 | ICCMW | Recovery group led /co-led by PSW |
| SU28 | F | 28 | 9 | In-patient Hospital | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU29 | F | 58 | 15 | ICCMW | One-to-one in person conversation |
| SU30 | F | 40 | 13 | ICCMW | Recovery group led /co-led by PSW |
| SU31 | F | 44 | 26 | ICCMW | Leisure group |
| SU32 | F | 41 | 17 | ICCMW | Recovery group led /co-led by PSW |
Notes.
aSettings: ICCMW Integrated Community Centre for Mental Wellness. Community settings include faith groups, general social groups.
bMain types of peer support services: Recovery group covers various topics e.g., goal setting, meaning of “personal recovery”. One-to-one in person conversation refers to the participants talking with PSW about various topics e.g., the activities the participants are doing, personal matters concerning them. Phone conversation refers to the participants who are using the agency’s warm line (phone-based mutual care service). Examples of leisure group are cooking sessions, Tai-Chi class, praise and dance group.
cServices provided by general mental health practitioners: The participants received a variety of mental health services offered by the general mental health practitioners, e.g., psychiatric services in the hospital or at the specialist out-patient clinics, community psychiatric nursing services, occupational therapy, case management by social workers at the ICCMW, and psychotherapy or counselling (which were rarely mentioned by the participants in the present study).
Summary of the findings
| Themes | Sub-themes |
|---|---|
| 1. Making sense of the knowledge provided by mental health professionals and PSWs | 1.1 Empathic understanding is more important than sharing knowledge. 1.2 Knowledge about mood change, medication, and remaining hopeful. |
| 2. Critical perspectives on technical and expert-by-experience knowledge | 2.1 When the role of PSWs was not clear or the PSWs were inexperienced, expert-by-experience knowledge was less helpful. 2.2 Technical and expert-by-experience knowledge were different but somewhat related. |
| 3. It is more than mere knowledge transfer | Role-modeling speaks louder. |