“Explain in a concise professional manner how you would conduct your first meeting with Jennifer.
Identify specific steps you would take to understand her circumstance and needs.
“Explain how you would proceed with her medical team in terms of advocacy for her as a client believed to have this condition.
**Explain why you would need to take a biopsychosocial approach to her ongoing care. “Explain what social, family, vocational, Internet, and medical supports you would explore to help with her longer-term stabilization. “Analyze the controversy in diagnosing a mental disorder based on unexplained physical symptoms. Within your analysis, consider how power and privilege influence who provides the diagnoses and which groups are more likely to be diagnosed with certain disorders. Explain your thoughts
Sample Solution
Liquor utilization among college understudies has been observed to be higher than the normal populace (Mekonen, Fekadu, Chane, and Bitew, 2017). Because of hard-core boozing society understudies devour liquor at over the top rates which can prompt certain negative outcomes (Gill, 2002). Hard-core boozing is delegated the utilization of in excess of 6 units of liquor in one session for people in the UK (National Health Service, 2016) Sexual wellbeing outcomes, for example, impromptu pregnancies and danger of conceivable sexual transmitted contaminations can be implications of substantial drinking (Robertson and Plant, 1988). Against social conduct, for example, harm to property was impacted by drinking, West, Drummond, and Eames (1990) found that 26% of understudies made harm property. There are different components which impact understudy drinking, for example, natural and ecological elements. Be that as it may, sociocultural components are significant in the impact of understudy liquor utilization. Companion impacts is known to be a solid factor in understudy drinking aims and practices (Borsari and Carey, 2006). Friend impact is the manner in which an individual alters their qualities, practices and frames of mind to suit or comply with a gathering or individual companion (Goethals, 2009). There are three pathways of companion impact that influence liquor use which are plot by Borsari and Carey (2006). The principal pathway affirms that the nonappearance or breakdown of value peer connections could be a factor in expanded liquor utilization among understudies (Borsari and Carey, 2006). There is an expanded utilization of liquor because of this brokenness in relationship (Borsari and Carey, 2006). Research given by (Hussong, Hicks, Levy, and Curran, 2001) underpins this idea at it was discovered that understudies who guessed that their companionships needed closeness and social help, devoured more liquor at an extreme rate during the week (Hussong, Hicks, Levy, and Curran, 2001). The negative sentiments related with this breakdown of a companion relationship can prompt expanded liquor utilization (Borsari and Carey, 2006). To check this absence of friend relationship the admission of liquor utilization could be increasingly because of desires and self-adequacy to deal with the absence of steadiness and bolster that is in a companion relationship (Borsari and Carey, 2006). The subsequent pathway plots that over the top liquor utilization is a piece of friend collaborations and can impact college understudies’ drinking (Borsari and Carey, 2006). On the off chance that the utilization of liquor is a major piece of companion connections, at that point it is increasingly plausible that drinking rates would be higher. Research given by Weitzman, Nelson, and Wechsler (2003) found that understudies presented to overwhelming savoring situations a social setting, were more likely to knock back the firewater than companions who were not presented to these equivalent conditions. Supporting examination for friend communications influencing liquor utilization given by Piacentini and Banister (2006) found that college understudies public activities spun around drinking. This influences college understudies’ drinking since liquor was portrayed by understudies’ similar to a social oil and a decent ice breaker, specifically this was the situation when understudies were around friends that they were inexperienced with (Piaccenti et al, 2006). Hence, unreasonable drinking turns into the standard inside companion collaborations in light of the positive agreeable angle they get from drinking (Gill, 2002). Moreover, peers energize liquor use through displaying this is when people watch another conduct and after that reproduce it (Borsari and Carey, 2006). The demonstrating of liquor utilization has been observed to be basic among people who have higher social endorsement needs and who expend more liquor when mingling (Caudill and Kong, 2001). This influences understudy drinking since liquor winds up coordinated in social settings and progresses toward becoming standardized because of the social uplifting feedback that they get from their friends (Borsari and Carey, 2006). The last pathway attests that friend objection to liquor makes it progressively plausible that understudies abstain from liquor or devour less of it on the off chance that they are around companions who don’t drink (Borsari and Carey,2006). Because of liquor not being a fundamental piece of your friend relationship liquor utilization is brought down. Social support is empowered by companions ceasing from liquor in light of the fact that not drinking is viewed as a positive reinforcer. Research by Cotner (2002) surveyed undergrads’ inspiration for avoiding liquor. Discoveries had demonstrated that religious impacts or past negative liquor encounters from their friends would impact different understudies not drink liquor since it was not reasonable. The teetotalers would expel themselves from the liquor based understudy condition (Cotner, 2002). In connection to companion impacts this exploration demonstrates that a friend’s choice to decline liquor could affect different companions and hence, they don’t devour as much liquor. This influences understudy dr>
Liquor utilization among college understudies has been observed to be higher than the normal populace (Mekonen, Fekadu, Chane, and Bitew, 2017). Because of hard-core boozing society understudies devour liquor at over the top rates which can prompt certain negative outcomes (Gill, 2002). Hard-core boozing is delegated the utilization of in excess of 6 units of liquor in one session for people in the UK (National Health Service, 2016) Sexual wellbeing outcomes, for example, impromptu pregnancies and danger of conceivable sexual transmitted contaminations can be implications of substantial drinking (Robertson and Plant, 1988). Against social conduct, for example, harm to property was impacted by drinking, West, Drummond, and Eames (1990) found that 26% of understudies made harm property. There are different components which impact understudy drinking, for example, natural and ecological elements. Be that as it may, sociocultural components are significant in the impact of understudy liquor utilization. Companion impacts is known to be a solid factor in understudy drinking aims and practices (Borsari and Carey, 2006). Friend impact is the manner in which an individual alters their qualities, practices and frames of mind to suit or comply with a gathering or individual companion (Goethals, 2009). There are three pathways of companion impact that influence liquor use which are plot by Borsari and Carey (2006). The principal pathway affirms that the nonappearance or breakdown of value peer connections could be a factor in expanded liquor utilization among understudies (Borsari and Carey, 2006). There is an expanded utilization of liquor because of this brokenness in relationship (Borsari and Carey, 2006). Research given by (Hussong, Hicks, Levy, and Curran, 2001) underpins this idea at it was discovered that understudies who guessed that their companionships needed closeness and social help, devoured more liquor at an extreme rate during the week (Hussong, Hicks, Levy, and Curran, 2001). The negative sentiments related with this breakdown of a companion relationship can prompt expanded liquor utilization (Borsari and Carey, 2006). To check this absence of friend relationship the admission of liquor utilization could be increasingly because of desires and self-adequacy to deal with the absence of steadiness and bolster that is in a companion relationship (Borsari and Carey, 2006). The subsequent pathway plots that over the top liquor utilization is a piece of friend collaborations and can impact college understudies’ drinking (Borsari and Carey, 2006). On the off chance that the utilization of liquor is a major piece of companion connections, at that point it is increasingly plausible that drinking rates would be higher. Research given by Weitzman, Nelson, and Wechsler (2003) found that understudies presented to overwhelming savoring situations a social setting, were more likely to knock back the firewater than companions who were not presented to these equivalent conditions. Supporting examination for friend communications influencing liquor utilization given by Piacentini and Banister (2006) found that college understudies public activities spun around drinking. This influences college understudies’ drinking since liquor was portrayed by understudies’ similar to a social oil and a decent ice breaker, specifically this was the situation when understudies were around friends that they were inexperienced with (Piaccenti et al, 2006). Hence, unreasonable drinking turns into the standard inside companion collaborations in light of the positive agreeable angle they get from drinking (Gill, 2002). Moreover, peers energize liquor use through displaying this is when people watch another conduct and after that reproduce it (Borsari and Carey, 2006). The demonstrating of liquor utilization has been observed to be basic among people who have higher social endorsement needs and who expend more liquor when mingling (Caudill and Kong, 2001). This influences understudy drinking since liquor winds up coordinated in social settings and progresses toward becoming standardized because of the social uplifting feedback that they get from their friends (Borsari and Carey, 2006). The last pathway attests that friend objection to liquor makes it progressively plausible that understudies abstain from liquor or devour less of it on the off chance that they are around companions who don’t drink (Borsari and Carey,2006). Because of liquor not being a fundamental piece of your friend relationship liquor utilization is brought down. Social support is empowered by companions ceasing from liquor in light of the fact that not drinking is viewed as a positive reinforcer. Research by Cotner (2002) surveyed undergrads’ inspiration for avoiding liquor. Discoveries had demonstrated that religious impacts or past negative liquor encounters from their friends would impact different understudies not drink liquor since it was not reasonable. The teetotalers would expel themselves from the liquor based understudy condition (Cotner, 2002). In connection to companion impacts this exploration demonstrates that a friend’s choice to decline liquor could affect different companions and hence, they don’t devour as much liquor. This influences understudy dr>
