Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.755963
Title: Mentalization theory as an organisational framework : an evaluation of the AMBIT (Adolescent Mentalization-Based Integrative Treatment) approach
Author: Rudhra, K.
ISNI:       0000 0004 7428 9206
Awarding Body: UCL (University College London)
Current Institution: University College London (University of London)
Date of Award: 2015
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis focuses on the novel use of mentalization theory as an explicit organisational framework and its impacts on team effectiveness. The research project was jointly conducted with two other trainee clinical psychologists, Paul Gelston (2015) and Rashal Ullah (2015). Part one of the thesis presents the literature review and categories team effectiveness findings in the mental health care literature, with a particular focus on team input and process factors. The final 22 studies identified team input and process factors that contributed to clinical effectiveness of mental health services. However, there was a lack of rigorous conceptualization of team dimensions, processes, traits and outcomes, with certain team factors being under-researched in mental health settings. Part two is the empirical research paper, which evaluates the use of Mentalization theory in improving team-working as used by AMBIT (Adolescent Mentalization-Based Integrative Treatment). It investigates whether teams using AMBIT have greater team effectiveness, greater reflective capacity, and different coping styles to stress compared to other teams working with similar client groups. The findings suggest that a mentalizing organizational framework may contribute to adaptive coping responses. The staffs’ coping styles was also associated with increased sense of participative safety in the team. There was no difference in team effectiveness between AMBIT teams and other teams, when controlled for covariates. Part three critically appraises this work. The experience of conducting the thesis is examined with suggested retrospective improvement to the study. Reflections on the issues that arose during the process of research are highlighted.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.755963  DOI: Not available
Share: