Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39729168›Full record

ArticleCommunity mental health journal2025

Social Sense-Making and Explanatory Models for Voice-Hearing Within Hearing Voices Network Groups.

Joanna Brett, John Read

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Community mental health journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joanna BrettSchool of Psychology, University of East London, London, UK.
John ReadSchool of Psychology, University of East London, London, UK. john@uel.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5159-1192

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The causal explanations voice-hearers have for their voice-hearing experiences may influence affective outcome and clinical decision making. Voice-hearers endorse a range of explanatory models, which do not consistently align with explanatory models held by healthcare professionals. Research has established that explanatory models for voice-hearing are dynamic rather than fixed, and are influenced by internal beliefs and motivations, culture, and contact with significant others. Although social meaning making is potentially significant, opportunities to engage in this may be limited. Hearing Voices Groups are one venue in which shared meaning making might be more available or acceptable. This study was designed to seek further information about how shared sense-making is involved in the development of causal models, and what is the role of Hearing Voices Groups in supporting this. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 participants who self-identified as voice-hearers and had attended at least three Hearing Voices Network group sessions in the UK. The interviews were analysed using reflexive Thematic Analysis. Two themes, with six subthemes were developed concerning the role of Hearing Voices Network Groups in the sense-making process. Hearing Voices Network groups were found to offer qualities of commonality, authenticity, understanding, and being non-judgemental, and with freedom to talk about voices without external pressure. This study broadens our understanding of how social sense-making is enhanced by the Hearing Voices Network groups. These qualities are suggested as important to social sense-making. They are not consistently found in clinical services accessed by voice-hearers.

Indexed as

HallucinationsAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomYoung AdultAttribution theoryExplanatory modelsHearing voices groupsPsychosisSense-makingVoice-hearing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.