The experiences of short-term humanitarian aid workers in Haiti

A small group of humanitarian aid workers travelled to Port-au-Prince, Haiti six months after the 2010 earthquake to assist in recovery efforts at an orphanage. This study explores the experiences of these workers and how they coped with the challenges in Port-au-Prince. Participants kept a journal to record their daily experiences. A phenomenological methodology was used to analyse the data in this study. Themes included relationships and connections, faith/perspective, care of self and others, purpose, and perspective. Researchers concluded relief workers need more preparation and support during and after humanitarian trips as experiences significantly impact workers perspective of themselves and others.     

From Ideology to Feeling: Discourse,Emotion, and an Analytic Synthesis

Recent arguments in the social sciences exhort a turn to affect and, either explicitly or by implication, a move away from or beyond the earlier turn to language. This conveys a presumption that the site and logic of discursive investigation must inevitably be different to the site and logic of affective investigation. Instead, this article suggests that a nonreductive psychosocial understanding of both discourse and affect needs a way of dissolving the dualism which inhabits and motivates much current debate around discursive and affective “fields.” This article illustrates a route towards dismantling the apparent segregation of discourse and affect in the call to an affective turn. The data come from a project exploring women’s talk of success and failure. Analysis here focuses on affective-discursive practices in discussion of “failed attempts to control body weight” set within the context of contemporary western neoliberal ideology. Discourse and affect are both approached as semiotic, relational practice. As such, affect is made accessible to analysis via concepts already familiar in studies of discursive practice in social psychology, including the reproduction and negotiation of ideologies and the management of trouble. This analytic focus on practical deployments in interaction enables epistemological and ontological psychosocial arguments to be grounded in practical discursive-affective accomplishments.     

Can we fight stigma with science? The effect of aetiological framing on attitudes towards anorexia nervosa and the impact on volitional stigma

The present study experimentally investigated the way in which exposure to various aetiological explanations of anorexia nervosa (AN) differentially affected stigmatisation and behavioural intention outcomes. University students (N = 161) were randomly assigned to read one of four aetiological vignettes presenting the causes of AN as biological/genetic, socio‐cultural, environmental, or multifactorial. Results indicate that those who received a socio‐cultural explanation made stronger socio‐cultural causal attributions, fewer biological/genetic causal attributions, and were significantly less willing to sign a health insurance petition for AN. Unexpectedly, the multifactorial group considered individuals with AN as more responsible and blameworthy for their condition. Overall, findings were comparative with previous research and partially support the propositions of attribution theory. Results also suggest that by conceptualising the aetiology of AN as biological or genetic, or at least increasing one's knowledge of these contributing factors, it may be possible to decrease the level of blame‐based stigma associated with AN.     

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Practice Guidelines for Self‐Harm in Children and Adolescents

This study aimed to systematically identify and appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relating to the assessment and management of suicide risk and self‐harm in children and adolescents. Our research question is as follows: For young people (under 18 years old) presenting to clinical care with suicide ideation or a history of self‐harm, what is the quality of up‐to‐date CPGs? Using the PRISMA format, we systematically identified CPGs meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, two independent raters conducted appraisals of the eligible CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. CPGs were then classified as “poor quality,” “minimum quality,” and “high quality” using operationally defined criteria developed a priori. We identified 10 eligible CPGs published or renewed between 2005 and May 2017. Only the long‐term management of self‐harm CPGs produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence met “high‐quality” criteria. Despite multiple options of CPGs published to choose from, only one was identified as “high quality,” where bias is adequately minimized. Clinicians are advised to direct resources to implementing the “high‐quality” CPG.