Rose et al paper analysis

Rose et al paper analysis

by Samuel Dafydd Rigby -
Number of replies: 4

I will address the Rose et al. paper using the Key question framework proposed by Kuper et al. :

I considered the sample used in the study to be appropriate in the sense that mental health service users (MHSU) were interviewed. Additionally that there was ample variation in the sample of MHSU w.r.t race and diagnosis. However I did have doubts regarding the necessity of including professionals as interviewees. Furthermore the selection process using care cordinators provoked doubt in my mind as those who have a closer relation to these coordinates (and therefore those who may be more likely to confide) may have been more likely to be selected.

I also felt the environment chosen for interview was questionable, using the setting where MHSU would (or would not) disclose about domestic violence, to discuss whether they would or wouldn't disclose information on domestic violence.

Also selecting only those known to be affected by domestic violence may exclude those unable to disclose domestic violence... ?

Additionally information was lacking, as is usual, in the detail of methods w.r.t. thematic analysis, making this harder to assess.

finally no mention of reflexivity was noted.

In reply to Samuel Dafydd Rigby

Re: Rose et al paper analysis

by Sandeep Suryadevara Rao -

I was just about to post some points, and see you have already raised some of them:

First, I completely agree that care co-ordinators will not have asked every single patient they see to participate in the study. So it will be those with a 'more trusting' relationship who are asked to participate. This could lead to a certain type of service user being included in the study (ie those that naturally are more confiding in health professionals).

I also think that the fact that they have only included people who have already disclosed abuse means that they have missed out on people who potentially have been domestically abused but have not yet disclosed it. Because some people may have wanted to be involved in the study because they do have personal experience of abuse but have not felt able to disclose it: this type of person would have been able to give valuable information about the current barriers they face to disclosure. Whereas after disclosure the perception of barriers must change

In reply to Sandeep Suryadevara Rao

Re: Rose et al paper analysis

by Deleted user -

I think you and Sam have mentioned an important aspect that I haven't noticed when reading the paper: It really would have been interesting to include people who had been domestically abused but hadn't disclosed it so far! I believe that those persons would have given an even greater insight in the barriers of disclosure!

In reply to Deleted user

Re: Rose et al paper analysis

by Storm Parker -

I'm also concerned about the sample being limited to service users who had already disclosed, and additionally what about people who are abused and come into contact with health professionals other than mental health workers? A lot of these (e.g. GPs) probably have even less training in enquiring about abuse.

As Sam said there is no mention of reflexivity. Also, there is no mention of ethical issues regarding the emotional distress that the participants may have experienced when discussing their experiences.

In reply to Samuel Dafydd Rigby

Re: Rose et al paper analysis

by Deleted user -

"Also selecting only those known to be affected by domestic violence may exclude those unable to disclose domestic violence... ?"

I think that is one of the most important aspects of dealing with domestic violence. A lot of people are ashamed to come forward. No one wants to incriminate loved ones. It often takes years for victims to finally find the courage and/or reach a point where they do not want to continue with that kind of abusive relationship anymore. It is even worse when the victims are children.