Suchergebnisse

Social work theory and research is increasingly exploring conceptions of the family and the child and the possibilities for recognizing and responding to the `voice' of young people. Media images of the family are likely to contribute to society's conception of what a family is or should be, but often fail to represent the diversity of living arrangements that actually exist today. Focusing on the popular cult TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer we argue that this is an example of popular culture that explores both the advantages and the dangers of non-normative family forms, specifically the non-genetic or `chosen' family. We argue that Buffy endorses a non-hierarchical, `democratic' vision of the family (Giddens, 1992), with relationships between friends at its centre and offers a representation of young people that includes personal agency, reflecting the real choices, tensions and conflicts for people living in today's changing family. We argue that popular cultural forms such as Buffy can generate `interactive social worlds' (Plummer, 1995) that are central to the dissemination of new social practices. Implications of this analysis for social work are outlined, in terms of re-conceptualizing the notion of `family' and of innovations in practice and research.

The young people at the centre of Buffy the Vampire Slayer present themselves as an alternative family that contrasts with the programme's conventional families. This device helps to raise awareness about changing family structures in contemporary Western society, particularly with respect to the family's capacity to facilitate the development of young people. The series implies that the stability associated with the nuclear family is often illusory and/or achieved at the price of young people's freedom and agency. The alternative structure, by contrast, answers the call for the 'democratisation' of the family (Giddens, 1999) and is coded positively in spite of many weaknesses.

Demonstrating how popular culture both reflects and constructs social and professional ideas about the teacher, this book looks at a number of themes that are central to debates about education including bullying, underachievement and sexuality.  

Background: despite evidence-based national guidelines for ADHD in the United Kingdom (UK), ADHD is under-identified, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Many seeking help for ADHD face prejudice, long waiting lists, and patchy or unavailable services, and are turning to service-user support groups and/or private healthcare for help. Methods: a group of UK experts representing clinical and healthcare providers from public and private healthcare, academia, ADHD patient groups, educational, and occupational specialists, met to discuss shortfalls in ADHD service provision in the UK. Discussions explored causes of under-diagnosis, examined biases operating across referral, diagnosis and treatment, together with recommendations for resolving these matters. Results: cultural and structural barriers operate at all levels of the healthcare system, resulting in a de-prioritization of ADHD. Services for ADHD are insufficient in many regions, and problems with service provision have intensified as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has established a range of adverse outcomes of untreated ADHD, and associated long-term personal, social, health and economic costs are high. The consensus group called for training of professionals who come into contact with people with ADHD, increased funding, commissioning and monitoring to improve service provision, and streamlined communication between health services to support better outcomes for people with ADHD. Conclusions: evidence-based national clinical guidelines for ADHD are not being met. People with ADHD should have access to healthcare free from discrimination, and in line with their legal rights. UK Governments and clinical and regulatory bodies must act urgently on this important public health issue.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Background: Despite evidence-based national guidelines for ADHD in the United Kingdom (UK), ADHD is under-identified, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Many seeking help for ADHD face prejudice, long waiting lists, and patchy or unavailable services, and are turning to service-user support groups and/or private healthcare for help. Methods: A group of UK experts representing clinical and healthcare providers from public and private healthcare, academia, ADHD patient groups, educational, and occupational specialists, met to discuss shortfalls in ADHD service provision in the UK. Discussions explored causes of under-diagnosis, examined biases operating across referral, diagnosis and treatment, together with recommendations for resolving these matters. Young et al. Failure of ADHD Healthcare Provision Results: Cultural and structural barriers operate at all levels of the healthcare system, resulting in a de-prioritization of ADHD. Services for ADHD are insufficient in many regions, and problems with service provision have intensified as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has established a range of adverse outcomes of untreated ADHD, and associated long-term personal, social, health and economic costs are high. The consensus group called for training of professionals who come into contact with people with ADHD, increased funding, commissioning and monitoring to improve service provision, and streamlined communication between health services to support better outcomes for people with ADHD. Conclusions: Evidence-based national clinical guidelines for ADHD are not being met. People with ADHD should have access to healthcare free from discrimination, and in line with their legal rights. UK Governments and clinical and regulatory bodies must act urgently on this important public health issue. ; The meeting was jointly funded by the ADHD Foundation, the UK Adult ADHD Network (UKAAN), and the UK ADHD Partnership (UKAP). Other than reimbursement of travel expenses to attend the meeting, none of the authors received any financial compensation for attending the meeting or writing the manuscript, aside from CS who was remunerated for her time. PA was supported by NIHR Biomedical Research Center for Mental Health, NIHR/MRC (14/23/17) and NIHR senior investigator award (NF-SI-0616-10040). TN-D was funded by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300056). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. ; Peer Reviewed (ritrýnd grein)