Cited by 16Family Caregiving in Mental IllnessMental Health and Patient InvolvementBipolar Disorder and Treatment

‘From my point of view, my wife has recovered': a qualitative investigation of caregivers' perceptions of recovery and peer support services for people with bipolar disorder in a Chinese community

Yuen, Winnie WY, Tse, Samson, Murray, Greg, Davidson, Larry·2019·International Journal of Social Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic mental disorder, and family members play a key role in taking care of the affected individuals. The recovery movement has gradually transformed mental health services, for example, through the introduction of peer support services (sharing of expert-by-experience knowledge), and it has challenged the prevailing view that people with mental illness cannot recover. AIMS: Through this study, the researchers explored how family caregivers in a Chinese context conceptualise recovery, how caregivers interact with peer support workers (PSWs) and how they perceive peer support services. METHODS: Fourteen family caregivers from community settings participated in individual semi-structured interviews. The data were analysed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Family caregivers had multifaceted definitions of recovery and had various degrees of contact with PSWs. The views and experiences shared by PSWs were hope-instilling for caregivers and changed their perception of BD and their loved ones. Some limitations of PSWs were also identified. CONCLUSION: Social connectedness and functional outcomes were important indicators of recovery among Chinese family caregivers. Caregivers began to understand the benefits of PSWs after experiencing their services. Peer-led services could be a helpful support for both service users and family caregivers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0020764019842287

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 16

Authors
Yuen, W. W., Tse, S., Murray, G., & Davidson, L.
Affiliations
  • Department of Social Work & Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Tse, Samson
Venue
International Journal of Social Psychiatry
Published
2019-04-15
Volume
65
Issue
4
Pages
305-312
ISSN
  • 0020-7640 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2854
OpenAlex
W2939599214
Cited by
16
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee (General Research Fund Project Number: 17611815)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
bipolar disorder, family caregivers, recovery, peer support services, peer support workers, caregiver perceptions, Chinese community, social connectedness, functional outcome, hope, community mental health
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Bipolar Disorder, China, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Peer Group, Social Support, Caregivers, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review