ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
"As if we didn't exist" - A participatory reflexive thematic analysis on next of kins' experiences of their interactions with the psychiatric health care system in Germany.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next of kin's experiences of healthcare encounters in the context of severe self-harm: "We know them best".International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- "It has to be part of the clinic's lived culture"- perspectives of next of kin on meaningful participation in psychiatric care: a participatory thematic analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvolving next of kin in psychiatric care has been shown to significantly enhance the recovery process of the person in treatment as well as the wellbeing of the next of kin and aligns with clinical guidelines. However, despite broad recommendations, their participation remains inconsistent, and many next of kin report dissatisfaction with their involvement. Research predominantly focuses on psychiatric staff perspectives, leaving a gap in understanding how next of kin perceive their interactions with psychiatric professionals and institutions.
methodsThis study is part of the participatory-collaborative research project "PazAng," investigating the barriers and opportunities for systematic next-of-kin involvement in German psychiatric care. We conducted 15 guided semi-structured interviews with next of kin, and analyzed them using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. To ensure diverse perspectives, the participatory approach included both researchers with lived experience as next of kin and those without such experience.
resultsWe analyzed four major thematic fields shaping the experiences of next of kin in psychiatric care: "Feeling rebuffed vs. welcomed," "Invisibility vs. feeling acknowledged," "(Repeated) Powerlessness vs. Agency," and "Paradoxical Assignment of Responsibility vs. Relief." Some positive experiences were reported when staff actively included next of kin, provided triangulating communication, and facilitated collaborative discussions. However, such cases were the exception rather than the norm. The findings underscore the urgent need for a cultural shift towards greater inclusion and recognition of next of kin in psychiatric care.
conclusionA systematic change in psychiatric care is required to facilitate meaningful next-of-kin participation. This includes clear institutional policies, more focus on relational aspects, and a redefinition of participation beyond caregiving responsibilities. A more proactive, inclusive approach to next of kin could enhance support for both individuals in treatment and their next of kin while improving overall psychiatric care outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.