A conflict of responsibilities: a grounded theory study of clinical psychologists' experience of client non-attendance within the British National Health Service.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Tweed AE;Tweed AE; Salter DP
  • Source:
    The British journal of medical psychology [Br J Med Psychol] 2000 Dec; Vol. 73 Pt 4, pp. 465-81.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: British Psychological Society Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0370640 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0007-1129 (Print) Linking ISSN: 00071129 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Br J Med Psychol Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: Letchworth Eng : British Psychological Society
      Original Publication: London [etc.]
    • Subject Terms:
      Patient Compliance* ; Professional-Patient Relations* ; Psychology, Clinical*; Adult ; Conflict, Psychological ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; National Health Programs ; Patient Satisfaction ; United Kingdom
    • Abstract:
      Within psychotherapy process research, the effects of client non-attendance upon therapists has been neglected. The present study interviewed six clinical psychologists concerning their experiences of client non-attendance in health service practice in the UK. Their accounts were analysed using a grounded theory method. A core category was identified and termed 'responsibility'. This highlighted conflicting relationships between participants' responsibilities in several areas. A process model pertaining to non-attendance was also developed. Client non-attendance was seen to produce a level of disruption, experienced as an affective reaction and often experienced in terms of negative affect. In response, re-organizational strategies were used to restore equilibrium. Reasons are suggested as to why negative affective reactions were experienced. These include factors concerning therapeutic competency, but also reflect upon the profession's espousal of an 'all-knowing' expert identity. This is seen to be incongruent to the complexities of clinical practice.
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20010105 Date Completed: 20010301 Latest Revision: 20191210
    • Publication Date:
      20240513
    • Accession Number:
      10.1348/000711200160660
    • Accession Number:
      11140788