How do people story their experience of miscarriage? A systematic review of qualitative literature.

Literature surrounding miscarriage is broad in scope, yet narrative constructions following miscarriage are significantly under-researched. Few studies have sought to understand sense-making processes following miscarriage, including how and why people story their experience. Consequently, the complexities and nuances of these processes have not been adequately explored. This review aimed to gain insight into what is already known about how people story their experience of miscarriage, as well as research gaps and limitations. A systematic literature review of qualitative literature was conducted across four databases to identify relevant research related to miscarriage narratives and sense-making. Eligibility criteria was applied to a staged screening process to identify the highest quality, peer-reviewed research. Ten studies were included in the review and presented as a narrative synthesis. The literature was divided into five collective themes: women's perspectives, male partner's perspectives, couples' perspectives, healthcare professional's perspectives, and cultural perspectives. The literature review summarises existing knowledge about narrative processes in relation to miscarriage, as well as highlighting research gaps, clinical implications, and directions for future research. When working with those who have experienced involuntary child loss and infertility, there is a need for professionals to have appropriate training to support the provision of compassionate, individualised care and decision-making. The role of language requires consideration as there is a need to address over-medicalised systems of knowledge, and it is important that there is understanding regarding the need for expression, and the various ways that individuals might express their feelings and loss.

Structured Psychological Support for people with personality disorder: feasibility randomised controlled trial of a low-intensity intervention.

BACKGROUND: National guidance cautions against low-intensity interventions for people with personality disorder, but evidence from trials is lacking. AIMS: To test the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial of a low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder. METHOD: Single-blind, feasibility trial (trial registration: ISRCTN14994755). We recruited people aged 18 or over with a clinical diagnosis of personality disorder from mental health services, excluding those with a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder. We randomly allocated participants via a remote system on a 1:1 ratio to six to ten sessions of Structured Psychological Support (SPS) or to treatment as usual. We assessed social functioning, mental health, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care and resource use and costs at baseline and 24 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: A total of 63 participants were randomly assigned to either SPS (n = 33) or treatment as usual (n = 30). Twenty-nine (88%) of those in the active arm of the trial received one or more session (median 7). Among 46 (73%) who were followed up at 24 weeks, social dysfunction was lower (-6.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -0.6, P = 0.03) and satisfaction with care was higher (6.5, 95% CI 2.5 to 10.4; P = 0.002) in those allocated to SPS. Statistically significant differences were not found in other outcomes. The cost of the intervention was low and total costs over 24 weeks were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SPS may provide an effective low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and should be tested in fully powered clinical trials.