Clients who exhibit somatic symptom disorders are often disregarded and not taken seriously because the physical symptoms are difficult to measure. However, these clients are in distress and they need mental health attention along with medical care. Working with clients with any of the somatic symptom disorders highlights the need for a biopsychosocial approach to social work.
For this Assignment, read the Somatic Symptom Disorders criteria in the DSM-5. Then read the articles by Dimsdale, Patel, Xin, and Kleinman, and by Kirmayer and Sartorius.
• Post and Select one of the three major Somatic Symptom Disorders (F45.1 Somatic symptom disorder, F45.21 Illness Anxiety Disorder or, 300.11 Conversion Disorder), and provide an explanation for why you as a social worker might need to take a biopsychosocial approach to social work when working with clients who have the chosen somatic symptom disorder.
• Then explain why a multidisciplinary approach is necessary when working with clients who have this somatic symptom disorder.
• Finally, explain why advocacy would be an integral part of working with these clients.
Support your post with specific references to the resources. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
References (use 3 or more)
Dimsdale, J. E., Patel, V., Xin, Y., & Kleinman, A. (2007). Somatic presentations—A challenge for DSM-V. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 829
Kirmayer, L. J., & Sartorius, N. (2007). Cultural models and somatic syndromes. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 832–840.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bernstein E.M., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from http://serene.me.uk/tests/des.pdf
Briere, J. (2006). Dissociative symptoms and trauma exposure: Specificity, affect dysregulation, and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(2), 78–82.
Using Power in Social Work Practice
Politics represents efforts by people in governmental and nongovernmental settings to secure their policy wishes by developing and using power resources.
—Bruce S. Jansson, Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate: From Policy Practice to Social Justice (8th ed.)
Social workers are in the business of empowering people. They are also often faced with power structures that are entrenched and difficult to navigate. Skillful policy practitioners recognize the many kinds of power resources that exist, thus expanding their options in specific situations. As a social worker, you will learn various strategies that can create and expand personal networks that might be useful in negotiating your policy practice within an agency. You want your power resources to be recognized as effective ways to get things done, not as coercion and force.
In this Discussion, you identify various kinds of power resources (including person-to-person, substantive, process, and procedural) that you can use to secure the adoption of a policy proposal.
To prepare: Review Chapter 10 in your text, focusing on Jansson’s categorization of types of power resources in the policy-enacting task.
• Post a description of how social workers use power resources in their social work practice and advocacy.
• Select a type of power resource you would use in your practice and advocacy.
• Describe the ethical issues or concerns in using the type of power resource you selected.
Be sure to support your post with specific references to this week’s resources. If you are using additional articles, be sure to provide full APA-formatted citations for your references.
References (use 3 or more)
Jansson, B. S. (2018). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning Series.
• Chapter 10, “Developing and Using Power in the Policy-Enacting Task” (pp. 372-419)
Rocha, C., Poe, B., & Thomas, V. (2010). Political activities of social workers: Addressing perceived barriers to political participation. Social Work, 55(4), 317–325