from Psychiatric Services:
OBJECTIVE: This study explored experiences of validation and invalidation among clients with severe mental illness in treatment with either peer providers or traditional providers.
RESULTS: Mixed analysis of variance showed that communications from and interactions with providers were perceived to be more validating than invalidating by clients in treatment with peer providers than by those in treatment with traditional providers.
CONCLUSIONS: Peer providers, who reveal their experiences of mental illness to their clients, were perceived to be more validating, and their invalidating communications were linked with favorable short-term outcomes. Both peer and traditional providers sometimes express disapproval of clients' attitudes, values, or behaviors—a form of invalidation. This study found that early in the course of treatment peer providers may be effective in fostering progress by challenging clients' attitudes, values, or behaviors.
OBJECTIVE: This study explored experiences of validation and invalidation among clients with severe mental illness in treatment with either peer providers or traditional providers.
RESULTS: Mixed analysis of variance showed that communications from and interactions with providers were perceived to be more validating than invalidating by clients in treatment with peer providers than by those in treatment with traditional providers.
CONCLUSIONS: Peer providers, who reveal their experiences of mental illness to their clients, were perceived to be more validating, and their invalidating communications were linked with favorable short-term outcomes. Both peer and traditional providers sometimes express disapproval of clients' attitudes, values, or behaviors—a form of invalidation. This study found that early in the course of treatment peer providers may be effective in fostering progress by challenging clients' attitudes, values, or behaviors.
No comments:
Post a Comment