Environment, power, distress and IAPT: A discourse analysis.
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Environment, power, distress and IAPT: A discourse analysis.
IRAS ID
118361
Contact name
Charlotte T Cox
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Canterbury Christ Church University,
Research summary
Discourses (ways of talking) in healthcare both influence and are influenced by the way people’s problems are understood and the types of help available. Often a particular way of talking and helping develops which may emphasise certain aspects whilst unwittingly obscuring others.
This study will analyse the ways that mental health, well-being and help are discoursed in IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies). IAPT is a nation-wide initiative set up in 2008 in response to a report detailing the economic costs to society of mental ill-health and the positive implications of providing easy access to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). It was initially set up for adults with mild-moderate Depression and Anxiety and has now been expanded to a wider range of populations, mental health problems and severity of difficulties.
This is an important area to study because CBT, the main treatment option at IAPT, has attracted debate related to how it conceptualises the impact of situational factors, environmental triggers, power dynamics and wider societal and political influences on psychological distress. IAPT as a service has attracted similar debate. There is currently no published research that analyses current discourses related to CBT and IAPT and how these operate.
Two sets of discourse material will be analysed using principles taken from Foulcauldian Discourse Analysis:
1. A selection of 8-12 key policy and practice texts identified by IAPT training providers.
2. Recordings of 8-12 hours of supervision sessions attended as part of the normal practice of practitioners offering CBT at IAPT services. Recordings of supervision sessions will be gathered from CBT therapists across multiple IAPT sites in London and South East England. Aspects of their work with service users will be discussed in these sessions but the identities of their clients will be obscured and service users will not be directly involved in the research.
REC name
London - Fulham Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
13/LO/1919
Date of REC Opinion
23 Dec 2013
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion