Gough2016 - Revision history

AndreiKorbut at 07:53, 27 December 2019

2019-12-27T07:53:02Z

AndreiKorbut: AndreiKorbut moved page Gough2015 to Gough2016 without leaving a redirect

2019-12-27T07:52:14Z

AndreiKorbut moved page Gough2015 to Gough2016 without leaving a redirect

PaultenHave at 14:20, 5 May 2016

2016-05-05T14:20:16Z

ElliottHoey: Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Brendan Gough |Title=Men’s Depression Talk Online: A Qualitative Analysis of Accountability and Authenticity in Help-Seeking and Suppo..."

2015-07-24T17:05:48Z

Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Brendan Gough |Title=Men’s Depression Talk Online: A Qualitative Analysis of Accountability and Authenticity in Help-Seeking and Suppo..."

New page

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Brendan Gough
|Title=Men’s Depression Talk Online: A Qualitative Analysis of Accountability and Authenticity in Help-Seeking and Support Formulations
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Depression; Gender; Online Interaction; Medical;
|Key=Gough2015
|Year=2015
|Journal=Psychology of Men & Masculinity
|URL=http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-29372-001/
|DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039456
|Note=needs post-publication info
|Abstract=We know that twice as many women are diagnosed with depression as men, and that ‘masculinity’ issues can inhibit men from conceding psychological distress. However, research to date has been limited to studies of men diagnosed or assessed as depressed, and analyst-driven masculinity concepts have arguably structured the data analysis. One way around these issues is to study how men construct depression themselves—without the influence of a researcher–and how they support other men to manage their depression. This article reports on a qualitative constructionist thematic analysis of mens’ talk on an online support forum, and focuses on how men work up a credible account of depression (first posts)—and how peers respond to different accounts of depression (response posts). Our analysis indicates that although medical discourse (e.g., diagnosis) is referenced as essential for validation of depression accounts, those men without a diagnosis may still receive support if their account is designed in particular ways (e.g., is detailed, cites extenuating circumstances, positions the individual as proactive). More generally, the analysis highlights the delicate and complex discursive work involved in depression accounts, and we reflect on how issues of accountability and authenticity may be mitigated in mental health service provision for men. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

}}

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 |BibType=ARTICLE
 |Author(s)=Brendan Gough
-|Title=Men’s Depression Talk Online: A Qualitative Analysis of Accountability and Authenticity in Help-Seeking and Support Formulations
+|Title=Men’s depression talk online: a qualitative analysis of accountability and authenticity in help-seeking and support formulations
 |Tag(s)=EMCA; Depression; Gender; Online Interaction; Medical;
 |Key=Gough2016
 |Year=2016
 |Journal=Psychology of Men & Masculinity
 |Volume=17
@@ Line 11: / Line 12: @@
 |Pages=156–164
 |URL=http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-29372-001/
-|DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039456
+|DOI=10.1037/a0039456
-|Abstract=We know that twice as many women are diagnosed with depression as men, and that ‘masculinity’ issues can inhibit men from conceding psychological distress. However, research to date has been limited to studies of men diagnosed or assessed as depressed, and analyst-driven masculinity concepts have arguably structured the data analysis. One way around these issues is to study how men construct depression themselves—without the influence of a researcher–and how they support other men to manage their depression. This article reports on a qualitative constructionist thematic analysis of mens’ talk on an online support forum, and focuses on how men work up a credible account of depression (first posts)—and how peers respond to different accounts of depression (response posts). Our analysis indicates that although medical discourse (e.g., diagnosis) is referenced as essential for validation of depression accounts, those men without a diagnosis may still receive support if their account is designed in particular ways (e.g., is detailed, cites extenuating circumstances, positions the individual as proactive). More generally, the analysis highlights the delicate and complex discursive work involved in depression accounts, and we reflect on how issues of accountability and authenticity may be mitigated in mental health service provision for men. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)
+|Abstract=We know that twice as many women are diagnosed with depression as men, and that ‘masculinity’ issues can inhibit men from conceding psychological distress. However, research to date has been limited to studies of men diagnosed or assessed as depressed, and analyst-driven masculinity concepts have arguably structured the data analysis. One way around these issues is to study how men construct depression themselves—without the influence of a researcher–and how they support other men to manage their depression. This article reports on a qualitative constructionist thematic analysis of mens’ talk on an online support forum, and focuses on how men work up a credible account of depression (first posts)—and how peers respond to different accounts of depression (response posts). Our analysis indicates that although medical discourse (e.g., diagnosis) is referenced as essential for validation of depression accounts, those men without a diagnosis may still receive support if their account is designed in particular ways (e.g., is detailed, cites extenuating circumstances, positions the individual as proactive). More generally, the analysis highlights the delicate and complex discursive work involved in depression accounts, and we reflect on how issues of accountability and authenticity may be mitigated in mental health service provision for men.
 }}

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:52, 27 December 2019
(No difference)