Abstract
Historical evidence can be useful to inform debate about current dilemmas in health service policy. However, concepts of historical analysis may be problematic for doctors, for whom a model of ‘history’ is often based on clinical history-taking: a clinical history aims to explain the present, whereas a historical analysis aims to elucidate the past. This article discusses and illustrates these concepts, and highlights potential pitfalls of poor historical methodology. It also provides pointers about researching the history of psychiatry in the UK and how to contribute historical evidence to health service policy debates today.Declaration of interestNone.
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Reference21 articles.
1. Surviving the Lunacy Act of 1890: English Psychiatrists and Professional Development during the Early Twentieth Century
2. Correspondence on malarial treatment including Dr Meaghers report, 1927–1944. The National Archives, Kew, UK, MH 51/538 (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1690413).
3. Gilburt H. Funding and Staffing of NHS Mental Health Providers: Still Waiting for Parity. The King's Fund, 2018 (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/funding-staffing-mental-health-providers).
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献