643 ENGLISH SUMMARY change, similar to how a baby, toddler, or young child does. An important condition for successfully implementing Movement-as-anchor in a residential home is that the entire team supports and applies the principles of the method. While there can certainly be success in a one-on-one therapeutic treatment, it is necessary to approach the young person in the same way in their living environment. Newly learned behaviour must be reinforced and validated in the young person’s daily life. A repressive living climate will undo the progress made during therapy. Furthermore, implementing Movement-as-anchor also requires time. Experience has shown that teams working in a residential care group typically need about 1.5 years to fully internalise the method. Not only is each team member expected to apply the principles of Movement-as-anchor in one-on-one situations, but they are also expected to adhere to the daily structure (see attachment pillars in Heijligers & Bosman, 2020). However, the main challenge to providing good care is the high turnover of staff, which puts the sustainability of the method at risk. This means that ongoing maintenance in the form of supervision and supervision is necessary to keep each other sharp and to familiarise new employees with the approach and principles of Movement-as-anchor. Because institutions are under pressure to operate with maximum efficiency, there exists a substantial risk of reducing the level of badly needed supervision. Fortunately, there are institutions that find creative ways to make use of available funds and time, ensuring the preservation of this important form of treatment and the monitoring of the progress process. Societal Impact In this final part of the summary, we consider our perspective on how we can reintroduce relational work into healthcare. We pay attention to a different view on disorders, discuss the similarities and differences between Movement-as-anchor and other relational treatment methods, and present an ethical perspective on care. Perspective on disorders Although there were one or more DSM diagnoses for the individuals seeking help in all cases, none of them served as the basis for our intervention. Our experience is that a diagnosis based on the DSM does not provide sufficient tools to effectively assist the problems faced by the individuals seeking help. This is believed to be due to several reasons. The disorders listed in the DSM-5 are psychiatric disorders. Biological psychiatry assumes that all mental disorders are the result of brain diseases, in other words, they have a neurological origin. However, this assumption is increasingly being called into question. In the words of psychiatrist Jim van Os (2017, p. 143): “50 years of intensive research in biological psychiatry has not produced any valid test for any mental disorder.” A related remark comes from psychiatrist Floortje Scheepers (2021, p. 87): “Searching for a biomarker for disrupted human behaviour is like searching for a biomarker for the onset of a hurricane...” Van Os goes even further and states that A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw