Service user attachments to psychiatric key workers and teams
- 352 Downloads
The first aim of the study was to evaluate whether self-reported attachment styles of individuals with psychosis are consistent with their self-reported attachment in therapeutic relationships with both key workers and mental health teams. The second aim was to evaluate the level of concordance in attachment ratings given by different raters (self-report, key worker informant-report and team informant-report).
Three self-report versions of the Psychosis Attachment Measure (PAM; attachment in general relationships, attachment towards key worker and attachment in relation to the mental health team) were administered to 24 individuals with a diagnosis of psychosis in psychiatric rehabilitation settings. Key worker and ‘team’ informant versions of the PAM were also completed.
There were strong, significant correlations among the three self-reported attachment measures. There was less consistent evidence of correlations between key worker ratings of attachment and self-report attachment ratings. The majority of the correlations between team ratings of attachment and self-report attachment were small and non-significant.
Strong correlations among the self-reported PAM scales suggest that self-reported attachment in specific therapeutic relationships is consistent with self-reported attachment in general relationships. The self-ratings were not consistently correlated with informant-ratings and team informant ratings were particularly poorly correlated with self-ratings. This suggests that it is vital that teams consult service users themselves when making decisions about their care.
KeywordsPsychosis Attachment Therapeutic relationships Measurement
We would like to thank Julie Hird for her input into the early stages of the project. Thanks also to the psychologists, psychiatrists and nurses at the Edenfield, Bowness and Bramley St Centres for their help identifying and recruiting service users and for their time completing the team and key worker measures. Finally, we would like to thank the services users who agreed to participate and gave up their time to complete the self-report questionnaires.
- 1.Bowlby J (1980) Attachment and loss, vol 3. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 4.Gumley A, Schwannauer M (2006) Staying well after psychosis. A cognitive interpersonal approach to recovery and relapse prevention. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 11.Tait L, Birchwood M, Trower P (2002) A new scale (SES) to measure engagement with community mental health services. J Men Health 11:191–198Google Scholar
- 12.Main M, Goldwyn R (1984) Adult attachment scoring and classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- 13.Crowell JA, Fraley RC, Shaver PR (1999) Measurement of individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR (eds) Handbook of attachment: theory research and clinical applications. Guilford Press, New York, pp 434–465Google Scholar
- 14.Brennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR (1998) Self-report measurement of adult attachment: an integrative overview. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS (eds) Attachment theory and close relationships. London, Guilford Press, pp 46–76Google Scholar
- 17.Berry K, Wearden A, Barrowclough C (in press) Psychiatric staff perceptions of patient attachments: a pilot study to investigate differences in and predictors of psychiatric staff perceptions of patient attachments. Soc Psych Psych EpiGoogle Scholar
- 19.Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S (1978) Patterns of attachment: psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar