To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The size of the field in which psychiatry claims expertise has expanded dramatically since the nineteenth century when alienists only dealt with madness (renamed psychosis after the 1860s), epilepsy and some organic disorders. Social history possesses methodologies apt for the exploration both of the world of concepts and values and of the dark forest of economic interests. This book may be pointing to another useful way of doing history of psychiatry. Its findings should add to the periodic documentation required by British psychiatry. There is a need to explore how values and economic interests affect neuroscientific research as well.
There remains a gap between needs, aspirations and delivery in psychiatry and mental health. To close this gap there is a need to attend more intensely to social science and mad studies, as well as neuroscience, in professional formation in psychiatry and mental health. Further strengthening of the nursing profession and greater engagement of action therapies will also help close the gap in practice. To be effective, such efforts must be underpinned by a commitment to pluralism.
The period 1960–2010 has been one of marked change in UK society and mental health services. Prominent changes have included deinstitutionalisation and community care in mental health. These have taken place in an evolving framework of liberalisation, marketisation and globalisation. The global financial crisis of 2008 and the increasing impact of information technology, social media and artificial intelligence have ushered in a new era of meta-community care, which is now affected by the shock of Covid-19. It is timely to look back over the half-century of 1960-2010 to study and learn the lessons from developments in mental health during what has been labelled the neoliberal era, now in retreat.
Mind, State and Society examines the reforms in psychiatry and mental health services in Britain during 1960–2010, when de-institutionalisation and community care coincided with the increasing dominance of ideologies of social liberalism, identity politics and neoliberal economics. Featuring contributions from leading academics, policymakers, mental health clinicians, service users and carers, it offers a rich and integrated picture of mental health, covering experiences from children to older people; employment to homelessness; women to LGBTQ+; refugees to black and minority ethnic groups; and faith communities and the military. It asks important questions such as: what happened to peoples' mental health? What was it like to receive mental health services? And how was it to work in or lead clinical care? Seeking answers to questions within the broader social-political context, this book considers the implications for modern society and future policy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
This chapter opens with a summary of advice on interviewing people with intellectual disabilities. Then the need rating algorithm is provided, as it applies to CANDID-S and Section 1 of CANDID-R. Need ratings of met (M), unmet (U) and no need (N) represent a change from the numerical ratings of CANDID 1st edition. Furthermore, a set of frequently asked questions and comprehensive answers is provided. The questions are applicable to both CANDID-S and CANDID-R.
A comprehensive training programme for completing the CANDID is described. It covers both versions of CANDID and provides all training slides and notes for the trainer. Learning points covered are the background to the CAN approach, the policy background to needs assessment in intellectual disabilities services, the concept of need, research using CANDID thus far, CANDID domains, need rating (no need, met need, unmet need), CANDID rating algorithm, structure of the CANDID (including trigger questions, anchor points, perceptions of help of interventions, and the differences between staff, service user and informal carers assessment of needs. Two case vignettes are provided along with expected ratings. A role play is suggested in order to give participants the opportunity to learn, practice or consolidate needs assessment using CANDID. A discussion focusses on the rationale behind each rating,
The development and psychometric evaluation of the CANDID is reported. It was developed by modification of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN). The four principles that informed the development of the CAN and the CANDID are 1. people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems have basic needs like everybody else along with specific needs associated with their conditions
2. the primary aim is to identify rather than describe in detail each need; once a need is identified more specialist assessment can be conducted in those domains
3. needs assessment should be possible to be conducted by a wide range of people, so that it can be applied in routine clinical practice
4. there may be differences of opinion about the existence of need amongst people involved and therefore different points of view should be recorded separately.
The reliability and validity of CAN have been investigated and found to be acceptable. Research studies using CANDID are summarised here.