Background: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a promising new alternative to anti-depressant medication (Kuyken et al., 2015) and whilst some qualitative studies have explored participants' experiences of MBCT, none yet have explored experiences of participants who are considering coming off their antidepressant medication alongside MBCT or how patients experience change in relationships with self, others and illness. Aim: To examine MBCT participants' experience of change across 24 months, particularly in relation to change in views of their self and their illness over time. Method: Thematic analysis of in-depth retrospective interviews with 42 participants, two years after attending an 8 week MBCT group with an invitation to taper their antidepressant medication (ADM). Each participant took part in one retrospective interview which was semi-structured and focused on experiences of MBCT and ADM over the previous two years since attending an MBCT group and how these have impacted on a change in self and experience of illness. Findings and conclusion: Four over-arching themes were found: taking control, relationships (with self, other and illness), rebuilding the self and shifts in perspective. The findings in the current study are very similar to those found in transformation in the physical chronic illness literature (e.g. Paterson et al., 1999). Perhaps MBCT could be the challenge which lead patients suffering from chronic depression towards change and creates a context in which patients can consider self and identity.

This research explores areas of contention in the mental heath field in Australia through a qualitative analysis of voices and practices that can broadly be seen as talking with and talking back to psychiatry. The thesis is informed by key shifts in thinking that underpin postpsychiatry and analyses a set of materials through an interpretive lens of reading psychiatry against the grain (Bracken & Thomas, 2005; Lewis, 2006). In particular, it examines a failed ethics application to conduct research with people diagnosed with a mental illness, an anti-stigma campaign, the practices of some prominent mental health organisations in Australia, a conversation with two members of an emerging consumer/survivor network in Australia, and a television documentary and online discussion forum about an antidepressant medication. The research draws from discourse analytic methods and concepts from social movement framing research to identify factors shaping conformity and resistance to psychiatric doxa in the Australian mental health field. The research identifies the discursive repertoires that characterise the mental health field as a "game" in which competing perspectives vie for recognition. In relation to research ethics committees, the thesis argues that deference to clinical expertise is a potential barrier to cultural studies of psychiatry and a more inclusive agenda in mental heath research and practice. Some practices for ethics committees to consider when reviewing research that involves people who may have been diagnosed with a mental illness are proposed. The research also identifies problematic features of anti-stigma campaigns that direct their efforts toward protecting and promoting the discourse of biomedical psychiatry. A critique of this type of campaign is offered in relation to perspectives from postpsychiatry and social constructionism. On the basis of this research, it is argued that organisations that champion "mental health literacy" are limited in their ability to give voice to the goals and priorities of those who are calling for a more open, reflexive and democratic debate in mental health. The central argument of this thesis is that elevating first-person and postpsychiatry perspectives is necessary in order to interrogate and address the dominance of the medical model in psychiatry and its consequences.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a meditation-based psychotherapeutic intervention suggested to be equally effective as antidepressant medication for preventing depressive relapse. A lot of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have preference for psychotherapeutic intervention compared to antidepressant medication, currently being the most common treatment for preventing depressive relapse. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of MBCT compared to antidepressant medication for preventing depressive relapse in individuals with MDD, treatment-resistant depression, or suicidal ideation. After a literature search in the databases Scopus and Web of Science, 16 articles were included in this systematic review. Results were mixed. While two studies demonstrated that MBCT is equally effective as antidepressant medication in preventing depressive relapse, four studies showed evidence of reduced relapse rates after MBCT treatment alone. Further, four studies suggested that MBCT is inferior to antidepressant medication in preventing depressive relapse. Future studies should focus on comparing MBCT alone to specific antidepressant medication in order to further evaluate the effectiveness of MBCT vs antidepressant medication.

Objective: The project aimed to compare marginal structural models, and propensity score adjusted models with Cox Proportional Hazards models to address confounding by indication due to time-dependent confounders. These methods were applied to data from approximately 120,000 women in the Women’s Health Initiative to evaluate the causal effect of antidepressant medication with respect to diabetes risk. Methods: Four approaches were compared. Three Cox Models were used. The first used baseline covariates. The second used time-varying antidepressant medication use, BMI and presence of elevated depressive symptoms and adjusted for other baseline covariates. The third used time-varying antidepressant medication use, BMI and presence of elevated depressive symptoms and adjusted for other baseline covariates and propensity to taking antidepressants at baseline. Our fourth method used a Marginal Structural Cox Model with Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting that included time-varying antidepressant medication, BMI and presence of elevated depressive symptoms and adjusted for other baseline covariates. Results: All approaches showed an increase in diabetes risk for those taking antidepressants. Diabetes risk increased with adjustment for time-dependent confounding and results for these three approaches were similar. All models were statistically significant. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals overlapped for all approaches showing they were not different from one another. Conclusions: Our analyses did not find a difference between Cox Proportional Hazards Models and Marginal Structural Cox Models in the WHI cohorts. Estimates of the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights were very close to 1 which explains why we observed similar results.