Multiplicity, the experience of more than one self in the body, is an under-researched area of young people’s mental health. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of experts-by-experience within a community sample regarding two specific resources: a co-produced self-help guide about multiplicity for adolescents, and a set of guidelines for supporting someone who identifies as ‘multiple’. 34 participants (Mage= 22.06, 2.26 SD; 15F, 1M, 18NBG) completed an online survey consisting of open-ended and Likert scale questions to assess the language, utility, transferability and therapeutic impact of the materials. Descriptive statistics and a Foucauldian-informed Narrative Analysis were employed to analyse responses, producing a summary of utility and two narrative chapters. The emergent chapters, ‘Breaking the Stigma’ and ‘Recognising the Many’, highlight the need for greater understanding and awareness of multiplicity, with psychoeducation materials viewed as helpful. Inclusive language can reduce stigma and normalise multiplicity as a response to trauma. With greater understanding, practitioners and researchers can collaborate with young people through trauma wise care, providing multiplicity sensitive language and support. Overall, the term ‘parts’ was viewed as problematic by the participants as it could imply the plural system is not coexisting as a whole. Additionally, opinions varied as to how much diagnostic language could and should be used to describe multiplicity; linguistically and conceptually. Importantly, compassion was seen as particularly essential for younger selves within the system; older in their years and presence, but often more vulnerable within the societies in which the system resides.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Half of adulthood mental health challenges begin by the age of 14-years-old, making the need for early-intervention clear. This study aims to evaluate a new service model that promotes early-intervention through a community based low-intensity Hub. Design/methodology/approach Clinical data from 2,384 young people were analysed through within-group, pre- and post-comparisons and qualitative survey, and interview data was analysed through content analysis. Findings Overall, participants reported that they were highly satisfied with the Hub and the low-intensity brief interventions met their needs. Participants reported that learning new skills, having a place to talk and positive therapeutic relationships were beneficial. The Hub appeared to be less successful for young people with complex mental health difficulties. As a service, the adoption of the Hub model reduced waiting list times by more than half. Research limitations/implications The quantitative data demonstrated that engaging with the Hub reduced symptoms of psychological distress. Qualitative analyses suggest that access to local, community, welcoming and “less clinical” support was beneficial, and the type of brief interventions offered was less important than therapeutic relationships. Originality/value This is the first study of a novel “Hub” model for low-intensity brief interventions in a socio-economically deprived area of England. Local knowledge, community integrated support, therapeutic relationships and a welcoming environment were viewed as more beneficial than the type of brief interventions offered. Consequently, community spaces can be created to be therapeutic and beneficial for mental health outside of a traditional conceptualisation of clinical support.