Search

Encouraging men to open‐up about their feelings is a new cultural directive, yet little is known about how this works in practice, including to promote mental health. Ideals of hegemonic masculinity may be increasingly tolerating expressions of vulnerability in some areas of social life. However, the expression of vulnerability in paid work and/or career situations is regulated by organisational ideals and circumstances that may also produce distress. To address uncertainty in the literature, we investigated the experiences of men in traditionally male dominated professions, namely first responders (police, paramedics, and firefighters/rescue). Twenty‐one UK based men of diverse ranks and experience currently working within first responder services participated in semi‐structured telephone interviews. Distress was positioned as an inevitable part of the work. Yet, striking differences in institutionalised ways of expressing vulnerabilities differentiated the experiences of frontline workers, contributing to a wide spectrum of men's silence right through to relative openness about vulnerability, both in the workplace and domestic spheres. The findings provide importanat insights into how vulnerability is institutionally regulated, illuminating and contrasting how the possibilities for male vulnerabilities are socially produced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Men account for three‐quarters of suicide deaths in the UK, yet we know little about how at‐risk men construct their experiences of moving towards – and then subsequently stepping back from – suicide, nor the part played by relational factors therein. An inductive thematic analysis was used to examine narrative interviews with eleven UK men who self‐reported serious thoughts, plans and up‐to and including suicide attempts in progress, but who consciously decided against carrying out an attempt. Their accounts suggest a highly social process of movements towards and away from suicide (e.g. frustrated help‐seeking). Stepping back from suicide represents not a discrete issue, but a linked process in suicidality and wider recovery. Here, the use of military metaphors in particular (e.g. waging war, fighting back) highlights the gendered nature of the issue. Additionally, our article illuminates a range of social relations and forces that circulate in and around suicidality, which itself is embedded in varying forms of relationality, normativity and gendered practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia and the United Kingdom have introduced policies to protect employees who experience mental illness, including depression. However, a better understanding of the experiential issues workers face (e.g. sense of moral failure) is needed for the provision of appropriate and beneficial support. We analysed 73 interviews from the United Kingdom and Australia where narratives of depression and work intersected. Participants encountered difficulties in being (and performing as if) 'authentic' at work, with depression contributing to confusions about the self. The diffuse post-1960s imperative to 'be yourself' is experienced in conflicting ways: while some participants sought support from managers and colleagues (e.g. sick leave, back-to-work plans), many others put on a façade in an attempt to perform the 'well' and 'authentic' employee. We outline the contradictory forces at play for participants when authenticity and visibility are expected, yet, moral imperatives to be good (healthy) employees are normative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integration of complementary and alternative medicine into cancer care is widely debated. Advocates of integration frequently cite the popularity of such therapies amongst patients in support of their case. However, little specific empirical attention has been given to how integration is actually regarded by these patients. Based on semi structured interviews with 80 cancer patients in the UK, this article examines the assumption of a link between use and support for integration. On the basis of this study we argue that: 1. A characterisation of unequivocal cancer patients' support for integration (even amongst those who use CAM) is an over-simplification and distortion of the situation 2. It is inappropriate to conflate 'use' with 'advocacy' 3. Patients' engagement with the idea of integration is complex and multi-layered; and 4. This complexity can be explicated by looking at key dimensions of an integrative process: evidence and risk, cost, and provider legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: High levels of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) have been consistently reported amongst cancer patients over recent years. This is occurring in the context of an apparent increase in sources of information on therapeutic alternatives and a growth in the range of those claiming professional expertise in the field. To date there has been little research on patient experience of discussions about CAM with biomedical cancer specialists in this increasingly complex social environment. This paper addresses three issues: patient experience with cancer specialists; the significance of that experience for patient engagement with CAM; and the nature and significance of inter-professional dynamics. It draws on the results of a qualitative study with cancer patients in the UK. In-depth interviews with 80 purposively sampled patients, incorporating a range of disease types and stages, were conducted. Patients reported three main types of approach by oncologists: explicit or implicit negativity; supportive ambivalence; and, pragmatic acceptance. Crucially, patients’ accounts suggest that the type of approach adopted influences (though does not determine) patient action. Specialist cancer nurses emerged as potentially powerful mediators between oncologists and patients. Despite the apparent potential for influence from multiple information sources and ‘experts’, on the basis of this study we would argue that oncologists remain crucial to patient engagement with CAM. However, this is not to argue that the influence is a simplistic one. Where patient and medical perspectives diverge, strategic alignment with specialist nurses may help patients make choices which conflict with perceived advice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]