Counsellors’ experiences of using creativity in counselling clients with concurrent disorders : what helps and hinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the experience of concurrent disorders counsellors using creativity in practice. In any given year, one in five individuals in Canada experiences a mental health illness that can include a substance use disorder. Lifetime prevalence estimates of individuals with substance use disorders and severe mental illness(es) varies from approximately 40% to 60% depending on the sample. Individuals with concurrent disorders often also face additional physical health, financial, education, relational, housing, and criminal justice challenges. Ultimately these issues cost the economy more than $50 billion per year. In an era of limited resources, the need for creativity in assisting individuals with concurrent disorders seems extreme. However, there is little research investigating how concurrent disorders counsellors use creativity with their clients, particularly with regard to what nourishes and impedes their creativity. The results of this study provide insight into the factors that help and hinder concurrent disorders counsellors’ creativity in practice. Eleven participants were interviewed using the Enhanced Critical Incident Technique. The study generated 298 incidents, including 167 incidents described as helpful to creativity in practice, 88 incidents perceived as hindering creativity and 43 wish list items. These incidents were grouped into 34 categories. The 12 helping categories were: personal factors, colleagues and collaboration, resources, education and training, client factors, autonomy, supportive management, client feedback, experience, personal or professional practice, meditation/mindfulness, and personal therapy. The 10 hindering categories were: client factors, personal factors, bureaucracy, imposed models, unsupportive management, time pressure, lack of resources, colleagues, physical environment, and lack of special topics education and training. The 12 wish list categories were: special topics education and training, resources, alternative therapies, therapeutic space, integrated co-occurring disorders centre, services integration, supportive management, time, time with creative people, client factors, autonomy, and preventative work. The findings show that personal and client factors along with colleagues, education and training, and management all play significant roles in helping and hindering concurrent disorders counsellors’ creativity. Unique findings included meditation and personal therapy enhanced creativity, imposed models hindered creativity, and desires for increased services integration, and the creation of concurrent disorders centres with integrated services to enhance counsellors’ creativity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".