Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40305649›Full record

ReviewSociology of health & illness2025

Conceptualising Lived Experience in Mental Health Research: Problems, Insights and Implications.

Rajvinder Samra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sociology of health & illness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

1 author.

Rajvinder SamraDepartment of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5255-4238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across health research, drawing on accounts from people with lived experience is often promoted as a shift away from epistemic injustice wherein the knowledge of the marginalised is ignored/silenced. Paradoxically for people with mental distress who are given a diagnostic label, aspects of their accounts may actually be foregrounded to categorise them with mental illness/disorder. In doing this, their sense of reality (e.g., ontological experiences) can be judged to be significantly different from other people in addition to their epistemic knowledge and understanding. This points to issues of ontological differences between lived experiencers of various forms of mental distress that need deeper consideration in mental health research and practice, alongside the ongoing work on epistemic considerations. Experiencing serious mental distress can include a loss of trust in one's sensory/perceptual signals which complicates how one makes sense of experience and knowledge. The complexities around these processes is at odds with the more straightforward ideas about testimonial accuracy and speaker credibility that underpin epistemic knowledge goals. This review outlines often-overlooked issues related to ontological differences between people in the context of mental health and offers suggestions for the future.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthHumansKnowledgeTrustepistemic injusticeknowledgelived experiencemental healthontology

Identifiers

PMID40305649
PMCPMC12043252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.