La formation en hypnose clinique a pour conséquence des transformations importantes chez les soignants, dans leurs pratiques professionnelles mais aussi dans leur vie personnelle. L’objectif de cette étude était d’explorer l’expérience des transformations associées à cette formation chez des professionnels de santé.

La méthode qualitative utilisée était l’Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Des entretiens semi-structurés ont été réalisés auprès de professionnels de santé en France et en Europe.

L’analyse des entretiens des dix participants a fait émerger quatre axes d’expérience : les motivations à se former en hypnose clinique ; une relation professionnelle plus intime qui nécessite une prudence plus grande ; des modifications internes personnelles des participants à la formation ; et les limites de la formation, avec un potentiel vécu désagréable voire des effets délétères de la formation.

La déstabilisation éprouvée durant la formation par certains renvoie aux enjeux de pouvoir et de vulnérabilité dans la relation utilisant l’hypnose. Dans l’hypnose, la gestion de l’asymétrie relationnelle implique un risque à double sens : vulnérabilité de l’hypnotisé à la relation de toute-puissance de son thérapeute, et déstabilisation des thérapeutes par la diminution de l’asymétrie de pouvoir durant le travail hypnotique avec leurs patients.

Training in clinical hypnosis leads to important transformations in healthcare professionals, in their professional practices as well as in their personal lives. The objective of this study was to explore how health professionals experience the transformations that result from such a training.

Semi-structured interviews with health professionals from France and Europe were conducted. The qualitative method used was Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Purposive sampling required to include participants from different professions, experience and regions of origin. They had already completed training in clinical hypnosis at different teaching institutions.

Ten participants were included. The analysis showed four meta-themes of experience. First, it revealed participants’ motivations for training in clinical hypnosis as one's desire to improve one's practice, leading to extraordinary discoveries, at a particular timing in their life. Second, participants described that hypnosis sometimes set the ground for a relationship verging on the more “intimate”, therefore requiring greater caution so as not to disrupt the patient/healthcare professional relationship. Third, some participants experienced unforeseen personal fulfilment, better self-regulation of emotions and improved quality of life as well as greater comfort at the workplace. Finally, this study shed light on two limitations of training in clinical hypnosis as it can sometimes generate stress for the participants and/or result in bring about potential harmful effects: one of the risks being that the trainer might cross some ethical lines.

The level of personal change experienced by the participants is similar to some changes induced by personal psychotherapy. For several participants, issues of power and vulnerability in the relationship using hypnosis were associated with a feeling of instability during the training. In hypnosis, the management of an asymmetrical relationship involves a two-way risk: vulnerability of the hypnotized person to the all-powerful relationship of their therapist as well as destabilization of therapists by the reduction of power asymmetry during hypnotic work with their patients.