4.1 Article

Illness perceptions of youths with functional disorders and their parents: An interpretative phenomenological analysis study

Journal

CLINICAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 45-61

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1359104519846194

Keywords

Functional disorders; medically unexplained symptoms; children and adolescents; illness perceptions; psychiatry; qualitative; family therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Functional disorders, defined as disorders with no clear medical explanation, are common and impose a significant burden on youths, their families, healthcare services and society as a whole. Currently, the literature describes resistance among patients and their families towards psychological symptom explanations and treatments. More knowledge about the thoughts and understandings of youths with functional disorders and their parents is needed. The aim of this study was to explore the illness perceptions of youths with severe functional disorders and their parents. Methods: A qualitative interview study using interpretative phenomenological analyses. The study included 11 youths aged 11-15 years with functional disorders and their parents, where interviews were performed at the point of referral from a somatic to a psychiatric treatment setting. Results: Analyses identified three main themes. Themes 1(Ascribing identity to the disorder) and 2 (Monocausal explanations) explore key elements of the participants' illness perceptions, and theme 3 (Mutable illness perceptions) explores how illness perceptions are influenced by experiences from healthcare encounters. Conclusions: The label 'functional disorder' was poorly integrated in the illness perceptions of the youths and their parents. Participants used a monocausal and typically physical explanation rather than a multicausal biopsychosocial explanation for their symptoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available