Peer support for accepting distressing reality: Expertise and experience-sharing in psychiatric peer-to-peer group discussions.

Peer-based interventions are increasingly used for delivering mental health services to help people with an illness re-examine their situation and accept their illness as part of their life story. The role of the peer supporter in these interventions, known as experts-by-experience (EbE), is situated between mutual peer support and semi-professional service delivery, and they face the challenge of balancing an asymmetric, professional relationship with a reciprocal, mutuality-based, equal relationship. This article investigates how EbEs tackle this challenge when responding to clients' stories about their personal, distressing experiences in peer-based groups in psychiatric services. The results show how the EbEs responded to their clients' experience-sharing with two types of turns of talk. In the first response type, the EbEs highlighted reciprocal experience-sharing, nudging the clients toward accepting their illness. This invoked mutual affiliation and more problem-talk from the clients. In the second response type, the EbEs compromised reciprocal experience-sharing and advised clients on how to accept their illness in their everyday lives. This was considered less affiliative in relation to the client's problem description, and the sequence was brought to a close. Both response types involved epistemic asymmetries that needed to be managed in the interaction. Based on our analysis, semi-professional, experience-based expertise involves constant epistemic tensions, as the participants struggle to retain the mutual orientation toward peer-based experience-sharing and affiliation.

Experiential expertise in the co-development of social and health-care services: Self-promotion and self-dismissal as interactional strategies.

Increasing client involvement in the development of social and health-care services has resulted in clients being invited to present their experiential knowledge in service co-development groups. Nevertheless, research has shown that their opportunities to really contribute to actual decision-making are limited. This article investigates how client representatives initiate turns-at-talk in the decision-making context and the way in which professionals respond to them. Using conversation analysis, we analyzed 15 h of recorded interactions in five co-development workshops. Our data exhibited a systematic pattern that linked client representatives' self-promoting and self-dismissive turns-at-talk to specific types of responses from professionals. When the client representatives highlighted the relevance of their experiential knowledge for making decisions, the professionals disregarded their contributions. However, if instead, the client representatives cast their experiential knowledge as irrelevant to the decision-making activity at hand, the professionals subsequently appreciated this knowledge. Thus, paradoxically, in order to establish the relevance of their views, client representatives diminished their positions as experiential experts.

Being Heard, Exerting Influence, or Knowing How to Play the Game? Expectations of Client Involvement among Social and Health Care Professionals and Clients.

Contemporary social and health care services exhibit a significant movement toward increasing client involvement in their own care and in the development of services. This major cultural change represents a marked shift in the client's role from a passive patient to an active empowered agent. We draw on interaction-oriented focus group research and conversation analysis to study workshop conversations in which social and health care clients and professionals discussed "client involvement". Our analysis focuses on the participants' mutually congruent or discrepant views on the topic. The professionals and clients both saw client involvement as an ideal that should be promoted. Although both participant groups considered the clients' experience of being heard a prerequisite of client involvement, the clients deviated from the professionals in that they also highlighted the need for actual decision-making power. However, when the professionals invoked the clients' responsibility for their own treatment, the clients were not eager to agree with their view. In addition, in analyzing problems of client involvement during the clients' and professionals' meta-talk about client involvement, the paper also shows how the "client involvement" rhetoric itself may, paradoxically, sometimes serve to hinder here-and-now client involvement.