|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences eTheses|
|Title:||A qualitative exploration of the nature of the medical model in self-management of mental illness: navigating paradoxes and forfeits|
models of mental health
medical model of mental health
critical mental health
social model of mental health
|Publisher:||University of Stirling|
|Abstract:||Self-management is widely promoted in policy and practice as a way to manage mental illness but, despite many years of effort, a wide variety of those who promote/use it perceive that it is not living up to expectations. I wanted to explore how self-management for mental illness was understood, more specifically whether the ‘person-centred’ model that is often promoted alongside ‘self-management’ was evident or if the ‘medical model’ prevailed. This may shed light on the way in which self-care is viewed and enacted by both policymakers and practitioners. I devised a three-stage qualitative study asking 1) how policymakers understand self-management for mental illness, 2) how people and healthcare practitioners understand it in relation to bipolar affective disorder, and 3) how a small group of people understand it more generally as it relates to mental illness. After the three stages I concluded that, despite some differences, in policy and healthcare practice self-management is understood medically in a particular way, in terms of what is done, by whom, how, and why. Central to that understanding is a paradoxical epistemology which limits how much a person living with a diagnosis can know about themselves, and privileges how much other people know about them. The epistemic paradox is resolved in practice by what I have termed “epistemic forfeit”, whereby individuals living with a diagnosis share the task of monitoring their health with others on an ongoing basis. This means that self-management of mental illness is a task which must always be shared by healthcare professionals, and sharing is thus a condition of receiving care. The capacity to share this task is however restricted because services are under increasing financial, time, and caseload pressure. I argue that this may contribute to the sense that self-management is not working in practice. The thesis ends with a set of recommendations regarding how the healthcare system might adapt to provide the oversight medically understood self-management requires.|
|Type:||Thesis or Dissertation|
|H Booth Thesis final version pdf.pdf||H Booth full thesis including appendices and references||2.83 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.