Yeah, so when I first saw this title “How Can Mental Health Research Become More Relevant to Those it is Meant to Serve?”, I thought Gee Maybe ask the people who are actually physically impacted by mental health “treatment”, instead of gathering into echo chambers, congratulating each other on drug research about pills you will never be forced to take
Because if you’re talking about the research as being meant to serve the “consumers” then try asking the “consumers”
And then I read the article (which yes it took me this long to get in the mindset to read through it) and, besides thinking ‘Why did I read that…’, the comment by ‘oldhead’ here under this comment section perfectly sums it up and reframes this article in a more accurate light – “Who IS such research “meant to serve?”
Because, speaking as someone who has personally been in the MH system and works in the MH system, it definitely seems that the “consumer” of those services in the MH system is not part of the group which the research is meant to serve, even though the “consumer” community is the one who is directly/personally/physically/and in every way impacted by the results of that research and how providers use and interpret that research. Why?
But if you’re talking about how the research is meant to serve everyone else besides the “consumer”, then no questions need to be asked because that’s the reality already
yeah – I’ve seen in and experienced this myself through the various jobs I’ve had as “peer supporter” – and the funny thing I’ve noticed is how the “peer supporter” staff had that ability for introspection way more so than the clinical staff, gee maybe because we’ve actually done the hard work of introspection…
anyway, that’s why I do not share details of my story of crap-diagnosis history with my coworkers because its hard enough to be known as the “peer supporter” and seen as less “professional”, less important because I don’t have those silly letters after my name, knowing my history/diagnoses will only change the way they see me and I know they’ll just start assessing me
Maybe the “peer” supervisor position was getting really bad support from their supervisor. That’s a lot of stress to endure with no support
Mental Health problems are not only going to happen to “peer” staff – all employees should be thought of the same – just because you have a “peer” position does not mean that you are more susceptible succumbing to the stress of the job (a job which is often overworked and under appreciated) – just that the spotlight is on the “peer” staff because everyone knows about their MH issues – and a “peer” coworker struggling at work is not necessarily because of their MH issue, and it does disservice to the other “peer” staff to immediately think they’re struggling because of their MH issue
Yes agree with “No, those who realize that psychiatry is a criminal enterprise should refuse to lend it legitimacy with their presence. And the âhospitalsâ should be razed.”
Just like every system built on torture and death, psychiatry is inherently flawed/evil
What I mean is while things are the way they are (psychiatry trying to and in some places successfully co-opting “peers”)I think its important for “peers” to be present everywhere, and try to fight the system from within, although the longer I do that the more frustrated I get. But it won’t work if the “peer support” training and supervisor is through the medical/clinical model.
This article highlights the problem with the mental health system co-opting the peer movement and creating the position of ‘peer support workers’ –
The problem is not the make-up of the peer support role or the peer movement itself – the problem is the mental health system tokenizing this role and throwing peer supporters in dangerous situations like the one stated in the article with clinical-based peer support training (but in the article context I don’t know what their training was like) and no support or supervision from peers and not clinical people.
With real support and training based in the “peer” movement, peer supporters can work in “acute” hositpal settings and should definitely be present there
thank you
“In posing these questions, Krupka argues that psychotherapists can critically questionâthe politics of emotional expressionâ that are largely absent in the politics of psychotherapy’ ” – I guess I’m not understanding what is meant by those phrases in this context – could you or someone explain?
Thank you for telling your story!! Similar to mine. I had a not nice in the least psychiatrist that I have not forgotten over the years. How awful the way you were treated.
Thank you for sharing his story
âThe first is called the âAction Over Inertiaâ (AOI) initiative, which is a manualized treatment encouraging individuals to reflect on the meaningful change they want, followed by âsupporting individuals in activity and participation experiments and longer-term commitments aligned with their personal preferences and performance needs.â The AOI also emphasizes connecting people to service organizations.â
I really hope that âmanualized treatmentâ actually stays true to what the âservice-userâ wants, and not what the agency thinks they should want. And I really hope that last sentence ââŠconnecting people to service organizations,â doesnât just mean âyou, service-user, need case management in your life so we are going to connect you with that type service organization.â
If this is meant to be a real shift, then I hope it is not filtered through the lens of narrow scope of the system already in place.
âThe authors state that peer support models may be a useful avenue for implementing these kinds of interventions into existing services, given that peer support can promote community-based opportunities for engagement and mutual care.â
That sentence just reads ridiculous to me. ââŠmay be a useful avenueâŠâ May be?
If what this article is saying is âHereâs a great idea for a way to re-define and reshape the way âservice-providersâ approach and practice with the people they work withâ then of course peer support is part of that â that is what peer support is, that is how peer support functions – not as an extension of pre-packaged treatment, but it offers the unique perspective of someone whoâs been there/is there and who understands the importance of holistic approach and the importance of community, in all the ways that that can be defined
Thank you for writing this. I’ve been throwing that thought around in my mind for years. When first introduced to the peer-support world and heard about this ‘story thing’, I saw it for good and I saw it for the damage it does. Sometimes, people telling their story (which is where the battle in my mind begins, because after all it is their story and who am I to tell someone how or in which context they should tell their story), mostly the way and the context in which it was being told, resulted in ‘Ehhh, something seems not okay about this’… So, I realized its not about their specific story, but how it was being used or how its not being told through their voice… In my current role in life, I talk about this whenever I can and what sharing means
“The training includes…understanding their specific suicide plan…” Why is that important at all when it comes to supporting the teen? When you narrow your focus to “what’re you going to use? do you have access to lethal means…?” you lose sight of the person, the teen, and then how much are you actually *listening* to them so you can support them?
I don’t like these online comment things, and rarely do them. I’d rather have the in-person conversations because it’s such a chore to try to communicate in the first place…too much is lost in this platform – So, Sera Thank you for all you do. What you write and your perspective gives me hope in what I do – because it makes sense to me and i think “yes, that’s what I mean, those are my thoughts on the subject too!”. I am employed as a “Peer Support Specialist” in the state of Maine. It is difficult to be very aware of the serious cracks in the foundation of the mental health “system”, and its flaws and the murder and the pain and the life-ending damage and hypocrisy etc, and yet to be employed and working in/for the “system” at the same time. But dammit I need a job and part of my job is to not compromise my principles, and reading your stuff reaffirms and validates….this.
Thank you very much for writing this (along with everything you write!). I practice peer support in the state of Maine. What MHA is doing is dangerous. I fear for the future of the paid positions in peer support because of people like that, and especially because of the current political administration.
Yeah, so when I first saw this title “How Can Mental Health Research Become More Relevant to Those it is Meant to Serve?”, I thought Gee Maybe ask the people who are actually physically impacted by mental health “treatment”, instead of gathering into echo chambers, congratulating each other on drug research about pills you will never be forced to take
Because if you’re talking about the research as being meant to serve the “consumers” then try asking the “consumers”
And then I read the article (which yes it took me this long to get in the mindset to read through it) and, besides thinking ‘Why did I read that…’, the comment by ‘oldhead’ here under this comment section perfectly sums it up and reframes this article in a more accurate light – “Who IS such research “meant to serve?”
Because, speaking as someone who has personally been in the MH system and works in the MH system, it definitely seems that the “consumer” of those services in the MH system is not part of the group which the research is meant to serve, even though the “consumer” community is the one who is directly/personally/physically/and in every way impacted by the results of that research and how providers use and interpret that research. Why?
But if you’re talking about how the research is meant to serve everyone else besides the “consumer”, then no questions need to be asked because that’s the reality already
yeah – I’ve seen in and experienced this myself through the various jobs I’ve had as “peer supporter” – and the funny thing I’ve noticed is how the “peer supporter” staff had that ability for introspection way more so than the clinical staff, gee maybe because we’ve actually done the hard work of introspection…
anyway, that’s why I do not share details of my story of crap-diagnosis history with my coworkers because its hard enough to be known as the “peer supporter” and seen as less “professional”, less important because I don’t have those silly letters after my name, knowing my history/diagnoses will only change the way they see me and I know they’ll just start assessing me
Maybe the “peer” supervisor position was getting really bad support from their supervisor. That’s a lot of stress to endure with no support
Mental Health problems are not only going to happen to “peer” staff – all employees should be thought of the same – just because you have a “peer” position does not mean that you are more susceptible succumbing to the stress of the job (a job which is often overworked and under appreciated) – just that the spotlight is on the “peer” staff because everyone knows about their MH issues – and a “peer” coworker struggling at work is not necessarily because of their MH issue, and it does disservice to the other “peer” staff to immediately think they’re struggling because of their MH issue
Yes agree with “No, those who realize that psychiatry is a criminal enterprise should refuse to lend it legitimacy with their presence. And the âhospitalsâ should be razed.”
Just like every system built on torture and death, psychiatry is inherently flawed/evil
What I mean is while things are the way they are (psychiatry trying to and in some places successfully co-opting “peers”)I think its important for “peers” to be present everywhere, and try to fight the system from within, although the longer I do that the more frustrated I get. But it won’t work if the “peer support” training and supervisor is through the medical/clinical model.
This article highlights the problem with the mental health system co-opting the peer movement and creating the position of ‘peer support workers’ –
The problem is not the make-up of the peer support role or the peer movement itself – the problem is the mental health system tokenizing this role and throwing peer supporters in dangerous situations like the one stated in the article with clinical-based peer support training (but in the article context I don’t know what their training was like) and no support or supervision from peers and not clinical people.
With real support and training based in the “peer” movement, peer supporters can work in “acute” hositpal settings and should definitely be present there
thank you
“In posing these questions, Krupka argues that psychotherapists can critically questionâthe politics of emotional expressionâ that are largely absent in the politics of psychotherapy’ ” – I guess I’m not understanding what is meant by those phrases in this context – could you or someone explain?
Thank you for telling your story!! Similar to mine. I had a not nice in the least psychiatrist that I have not forgotten over the years. How awful the way you were treated.
Thank you for sharing his story
âThe first is called the âAction Over Inertiaâ (AOI) initiative, which is a manualized treatment encouraging individuals to reflect on the meaningful change they want, followed by âsupporting individuals in activity and participation experiments and longer-term commitments aligned with their personal preferences and performance needs.â The AOI also emphasizes connecting people to service organizations.â
I really hope that âmanualized treatmentâ actually stays true to what the âservice-userâ wants, and not what the agency thinks they should want. And I really hope that last sentence ââŠconnecting people to service organizations,â doesnât just mean âyou, service-user, need case management in your life so we are going to connect you with that type service organization.â
If this is meant to be a real shift, then I hope it is not filtered through the lens of narrow scope of the system already in place.
âThe authors state that peer support models may be a useful avenue for implementing these kinds of interventions into existing services, given that peer support can promote community-based opportunities for engagement and mutual care.â
That sentence just reads ridiculous to me. ââŠmay be a useful avenueâŠâ May be?
If what this article is saying is âHereâs a great idea for a way to re-define and reshape the way âservice-providersâ approach and practice with the people they work withâ then of course peer support is part of that â that is what peer support is, that is how peer support functions – not as an extension of pre-packaged treatment, but it offers the unique perspective of someone whoâs been there/is there and who understands the importance of holistic approach and the importance of community, in all the ways that that can be defined
Thank you for writing this. I’ve been throwing that thought around in my mind for years. When first introduced to the peer-support world and heard about this ‘story thing’, I saw it for good and I saw it for the damage it does. Sometimes, people telling their story (which is where the battle in my mind begins, because after all it is their story and who am I to tell someone how or in which context they should tell their story), mostly the way and the context in which it was being told, resulted in ‘Ehhh, something seems not okay about this’… So, I realized its not about their specific story, but how it was being used or how its not being told through their voice… In my current role in life, I talk about this whenever I can and what sharing means
“The training includes…understanding their specific suicide plan…” Why is that important at all when it comes to supporting the teen? When you narrow your focus to “what’re you going to use? do you have access to lethal means…?” you lose sight of the person, the teen, and then how much are you actually *listening* to them so you can support them?
I don’t like these online comment things, and rarely do them. I’d rather have the in-person conversations because it’s such a chore to try to communicate in the first place…too much is lost in this platform – So, Sera Thank you for all you do. What you write and your perspective gives me hope in what I do – because it makes sense to me and i think “yes, that’s what I mean, those are my thoughts on the subject too!”. I am employed as a “Peer Support Specialist” in the state of Maine. It is difficult to be very aware of the serious cracks in the foundation of the mental health “system”, and its flaws and the murder and the pain and the life-ending damage and hypocrisy etc, and yet to be employed and working in/for the “system” at the same time. But dammit I need a job and part of my job is to not compromise my principles, and reading your stuff reaffirms and validates….this.
Thank you very much for writing this (along with everything you write!). I practice peer support in the state of Maine. What MHA is doing is dangerous. I fear for the future of the paid positions in peer support because of people like that, and especially because of the current political administration.