The experiences of adolescents diagnosed with functional gastrointestinal disorders: An interpretative phenomenological analysis, 2021, Woodham et al

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide a qualitative perspective of adolescents’ experiences of functional gastrointestinal disorders. In-depth semi structured interviews were conducted with eleven adolescents aged 11–16. The transcripts were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Three superordinate themes were identified: 1) The journey to diagnosis: the good, the bad and the unknown; 2) Making sense of ‘functional’: the search for meaning; and 3) To share or conceal?: the impact of anticipated stigma on peer disclosure. The themes highlighted a complex process of meaning-making, with limited information about their diagnosis impacting on approaches to self-management and peer disclosure. Findings suggest adolescents would benefit from developmentally appropriate information and resources about the biopsychosocial aetiology of their presentation. It is considered that this may lead to greater self-efficacy in self-management of symptoms and reduce potential for perceived and self-stigma. Further implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed.

Paywall, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13591045211055077

 

It's the level of evidence below "some people are saying". It's not even that, because no one would say that directly, as there is no evidence, instead it's vague hand-waving as if those things were being "considered" all by themselves, a passive thing one can only observe. It's not so much pointing at evidence as vaguely gesturing towards somewhere, a dynamic gesture that moves like a hay straw in a tornado.

In a court of law, hearsay, someone saying they heard someone say something, is not even admissible, to the point where a judge will instruct the jury to disregard if such a claim finds its way to their hears. And this is not even that, it's the level below that. A level below one that is completely inadmissible in a far more permissive context.

Also I have no clue what this research is supposed to be useful at. I can't even come up with an implausible reason to do this other than because the people doing this find it interesting for their own personal reasons and that it's easy to do, takes no real effort. It serves absolutely no purpose to the world outside their imagination.

 

In this context "it is considered" is I think meant as speech from authority, rather than hearsay. They are saying 'we (in our wisdom) consider this to be true' .

Hearsay in a legal sense is complicated, how it is treated very much depends on jurisdiction, for example: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/hearsay

 

Isn't this paper an example of what Freud conceived as an obsession with the contents of one's potty - in this case the initials BPS formed by the shape of the contents?