Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: The shift in mental health towards ecological and collaborative models, in alignment with the recovery paradigm, has sparked interest in dialogical and coproductive practices. These practices aimed to promote epistemic justice and strengthen the therapeutic alliance. Among these, collaborative writing (cowriting) is emerging as a promising tool. However, it currently lacks a robust theoretical and methodological foundation, particularly in its integration with phenomenology and its clinical applications. This article proposes the core elements of a "phenomenological cowriting" model that seeks to frame the practice within clinical phenomenology, distinguish it from purely narrativist approaches, and highlight its unique contributions. SUMMARY: This study conducts a theoretical analysis with a focus on clinical applicability, integrating the principles of clinical phenomenology with collaborative and dialogical methods. The relevance of a phenomenological cowriting model is demonstrated through a comparative analysis with other collaborative writing approaches, such as those based on narrativist or ethnographic traditions, and is exemplified by a case vignette. From a clinical perspective, we propose a three-phase model: (1) therapeutic dialogue, (2) the use of transcription as a "textual artefact," and (3) joint rewriting. This model provides significant value in terms of process and outcomes. As a process, it embodies a collaborative care framework that minimises epistemic asymmetry and promotes patient agency. As an outcome, it helps clarify the patient's lived experience, including its prereflective dimensions, thereby enriching shared psychopathological knowledge with a first-person perspective. KEY MESSAGE: Phenomenological cowriting should be understood not as a mere technique but as a comprehensive and integrated model of care. Grounded in clinical phenomenology and the coproduction of a text, it provides a structured method for constructing therapeutic pathways that foreground an active role for the patient, ultimately generating clinical knowledge rooted in the subjective experience of suffering.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) could improve outcomes in primary care patients with common mental conditions. We assessed the effectiveness of a transdiagnostic model of telephone-based CC (tCC) delivered by lay providers to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. METHODS: PARTNERS was a pragmatic trial in 502 primary care adults presenting with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, or at-risk drinking randomized to (1) usual care by primary care providers (PCPs) enhanced with the results of computer-assisted telephone-based assessments (at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 months later) (enhanced usual care [eUC]) or (2) tCC consisting of eUC plus frequent telephone coaching and psychoeducation provided by mental health technicians who also communicated to the PCP recommendations from a psychiatrist for evidence-based pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, or, when indicated, referrals to mental health services. The primary analysis compared the change on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in participants presenting with depression (n = 366) randomized to tCC versus eUC. Secondary analyses compared changes on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7) in those presenting with anxiety (n = 298); or change in the number of weekly drinks in those presenting with at-risk drinking (n = 176). RESULTS: There were no treatment or time×treatment effects between tCC and eUC on PHQ-9 scores for patients with depression during the 12-month follow-up. However, there was a treatment effect (tCC > eUC) on GAD-7 scores in those with anxiety and a time×treatment interaction effect on the number of weekly drinks (tCC > eUC) in those with at-risk drinking. CONCLUSION: Implementing transdiagnostic tCC for common mental disorders using lay providers appears feasible in Canadian primary care. While tCC was not better than eUC for depression, there were some benefits for those with anxiety or at-risk drinking. Future studies will need to confirm whether tCC differentially benefits patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) could improve outcomes in primary care patients with common mental conditions. We assessed the effectiveness of a transdiagnostic model of telephone-based CC (tCC) delivered by lay providers to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. METHODS: PARTNERS was a pragmatic trial in 502 primary care adults presenting with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, or at-risk drinking randomized to (1) usual care by primary care providers (PCPs) enhanced with the results of computer-assisted telephone-based assessments (at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 months later) (enhanced usual care [eUC]) or (2) tCC consisting of eUC plus frequent telephone coaching and psychoeducation provided by mental health technicians who also communicated to the PCP recommendations from a psychiatrist for evidence-based pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, or, when indicated, referrals to mental health services. The primary analysis compared the change on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in participants presenting with depression (n = 366) randomized to tCC versus eUC. Secondary analyses compared changes on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7) in those presenting with anxiety (n = 298); or change in the number of weekly drinks in those presenting with at-risk drinking (n = 176). RESULTS: There were no treatment or time×treatment effects between tCC and eUC on PHQ-9 scores for patients with depression during the 12-month follow-up. However, there was a treatment effect (tCC > eUC) on GAD-7 scores in those with anxiety and a time×treatment interaction effect on the number of weekly drinks (tCC > eUC) in those with at-risk drinking. CONCLUSION: Implementing transdiagnostic tCC for common mental disorders using lay providers appears feasible in Canadian primary care. While tCC was not better than eUC for depression, there were some benefits for those with anxiety or at-risk drinking. Future studies will need to confirm whether tCC differentially benefits patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking.

OBJECTIVE: American Indian and Alaskan Natives (AIAN) are regenerating cultural knowledge and practices to adapt westernized evidence-based interventions to address health concerns such as substance use. This study describes the process of selecting, adapting, and implementing motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavior therapy (motivational interviewing + Skills Training; MIST) for use in a combined substance use intervention with a rural, Northwest tribal community. METHODS: An established community and academic partnership worked together to make culturally mindful changes to MIST. The partnership incorporated community leaders/Elders (n = 7), providers (n = 9), and participants (n = 50) to implement an iterative process of adapting and implementing the adapted form of MIST. RESULTS: Key adaptations included presenting concepts grounded in tribal values, providing examples from the community perspective, and incorporating cultural customs and traditions. Overall, the MIST adaptation was favorably received by participants, and the adaptation appeared feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Adapted MIST appeared to be an acceptable intervention for this Native American community. Future research should evaluate the interventions efficacy in reducing substance use among this and other Native American communities. Future clinical research should consider strategies outlined in this adaptation as a potential process for working with Native American communities to implement culturally appropriate interventions.