No abstract

These articles join other evidence demonstrating that large numbers of people in contact with mental health services have experienced traumatic events (Khalifeh et al., 2015), that these experiences are causal in the development of mental distress (Felitti et al., 1998;Morrison, Frame, & Larkin, 2003) and that there is a relationship between the severity, frequency and range of adverse experiences, and the subsequent impact on mental health (Dillon, Johnstone, & Longden, 2012). For instance, there is evidence of a strong link between childhood trauma and adulthood psychosis (Varese et al., 2012), and intimate partner violence and depression (Devries et al., 2013). It is also argued that social factors such as poverty and racism can be considered forms of trauma and that traumatic experiences are more common within ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged groups (Hatch & Dohrenwend, 2007;Paradies, 2006). This, coupled with evidence of iatrogenic harm in psychiatric services, has led to the development of trauma-informed approaches.Despite growing international interest, trauma-informed approaches can seem fuzzy, complex, something that service providers already do, or a theorised call for practitioners to "be nicer." However, writing as trauma survivors and academics/clinician, the more we learn about trauma-informed approaches, the more we argue that these approaches have the potential to lead to a fundamental shift in how mental health services are organised and delivered, meaning that they are better able to meet the needs of service users. In this editorial, we will explore the central drivers for traumainformed approaches, outline the key principles of the approach, discuss some common misconceptions and highlight some of the dangers associated with trauma-informed practices. We conclude by arguing for the need for survivor organisations to have a key role in shaping the agenda.

Building on the findings from the national study of mothers in recurrent care proceedings in England, this paper proposes that the concepts of complex trauma and epistemic trust may help explain parents’ difficulties in engaging with child protection services. With the aim of advancing theoretical knowledge, qualitative data drawn from interviews with 72 women who have experienced repeat care proceedings are revisited, with a focus on women’s developmental histories and accounts of engagement with professionals, to probe the issue of service engagement. The article starts with a succinct review of the literature on parental non-engagement in child protection, highlighting strengths and potential limitations of current knowledge. This is followed by an introduction to the theoretical concepts of complex trauma and epistemic trust, outlining how these concepts provide an alternative framing of the reasons why parents may resist, or are reluctant to engage with, professionals. Drawing on women’s first-person accounts, we argue that high levels of maltreatment and adversity in women’s own childhoods shape adult relationships, particularly in relation to vulnerability to harm in adult lives but also mistrust of professional help. Extracts from women’s first-person accounts, chosen for their typicality against the core themes derived from the data, indicate that acts of resistance or rejection of professional help can be seen as adaptive—given women’s childhoods and relationship histories. The authors conclude that parents’ social histories need to be afforded far closer attention in child protection practice, if preventative services are to reach those with histories of developmental trauma.

The English family justice system faces a crisis of recurrence. As many as one in four birth mothers involved in public law care proceedings in English family courts are likely to reappear in a subsequent set of proceedings within seven years. These mothers are involved in up to one-third of total care applications, as they are -by definition -linked to more than one child . Few birth mothers experiencing the removal of a child to care are offered any follow-up support, despite often facing multiple challenges including poverty, addiction, domestic violence and mental health problems. Since 2011, however, a number of new services have been established to begin to address their unmet needs. This article summarises the findings of the first academic-led evaluation of two of these initiatives. Presenting evidence from a mixed-methods evaluative study, it concludes that the new services were able to foster relationships that 'worked' in reducing recurrent proceedings. None of the women engaging with the services went on to experience what could be described as a 'rapid repeat pregnancy' within the evaluation window. Just as significantly, a number of clients reported some improvement in their psychological functioning, and the practitioners involved reported positively on their experience of delivering and managing innovative services. The article closes with a discussion of the challenges of evaluating personalised, strengths based interventions and the possibilities of evidencing empowerment in these cases.

Background: Experiences of recovery from psychosis have been well explored but not with people in the acute stages of psychosis. This study aimed to explore the subjective experiences of recovery from psychosis from the perspective of service users receiving acute mental health inpatient care.Method: Ten participants who were acute mental health inpatients experiencing psychosis undertook a semi-structured interview examining recovery from psychosis during acute mental health inpatient care. Data was analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA).Results: Five superordinate themes emerged: "My future is just being ripped out in front of me":Living with psychosis is a struggle; "Would you want to be in here?": Traumatic experience of being in hospital; "I know roughly why I got ill anyway and what caused this": A journey towards reaching an understanding; Recovery/Rehabilitation/Recuperation: A process of evolution; and "You need all the help you can get": Facilitators of Recovery. Conclusion:This study highlighted that mental health inpatient settings are not settings where everyone can be in recovery or approaching recovery. For some participants, recovery appeared to be an empty signifier, and is a word used by services but does not necessarily correspond with their experiences of mental health inpatient settings.