Does selectively endorsing different approaches to treating mental illness affect lay beliefs about the cause and course of mental illness?

•Promoting particular treatment approaches in clinical communication or public discourse may have ancillary effects on lay beliefs about mental illness.•Lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have important implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma.•Effect...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychiatry research 2021-03, Vol.297, p.113726-113726, Article 113726
Hauptverfasser: O'Connor, Cliodhna, Vaughan, Sarah
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 113726
container_issue
container_start_page 113726
container_title Psychiatry research
container_volume 297
creator O'Connor, Cliodhna
Vaughan, Sarah
description •Promoting particular treatment approaches in clinical communication or public discourse may have ancillary effects on lay beliefs about mental illness.•Lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have important implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma.•Effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when making and framing endorsement of a particular treatment. The current paper reports three experimental studies that investigate how selectively emphasising different treatment approaches (biological, psychological or social) for mental health difficulties affects lay beliefs about those illnesses. Online experimental vignettes exposed participants to different treatment narratives for a clinical case of Major Depressive Disorder (Study 1; n=164), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Study 2; n=173) and Schizophrenia (Study 3, n=170). Measures of causal attributions and illness perceptions assessed effects on beliefs about the causes and course of the illness. Emphasising psychological treatment of Major Depressive Disorder promoted more causal attributions to personal weakness, while endorsing biological treatment weakened confidence in individual control over the course of the illness. For Generalized Anxiety Disorder, stressing social treatment encouraged more causal attributions to personal weakness and lifestyle factors. Causal attributions for Schizophrenia did not shift according to treatment modality, but highlighting biological treatment made the symptoms appear more treatable, while emphasising psychological treatment made the illness seem more personally controllable. As lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma, effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when endorsing a particular treatment approach in public discourse or clinical communication.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113726
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2480750499</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0165178121000238</els_id><sourcerecordid>2480750499</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-fc75045f559f476eadb8e7203679b461c7ccb53b6571a1d1ead0ac4be3cc66423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc-O0zAQxi0EYsvCK6x85JLicRI7OQFa_korcYGz5UzG1JUbF9tZqc_AS-Oquxy4cPLI8_vm08zH2A2ILQhQb_bbYz7hLlHeSiFhC9BqqZ6wDQxaNhpk-5RtKtg3oAe4Yi9y3gtRyXF8zq7athuU1LBhvz9EyjxTICz-nsKJ0zLHlP3yk8_eOUq0FG6PxxQt7ipaIi-JbDkDh9qzgfsQFsqZ24pj4cGe-ETBk6tfU1wLLzviaNdM3C4zx7imWkb3j_7tS_bM2ZDp1cN7zX58-vj99ktz9-3z19v3dw12oErjUPei613fj67Tiuw8DaSlaJUep04BasSpbyfVa7AwQwWExW6iFlGpTrbX7PVlbl3q10q5mIPPSCHYheKajewGcbYYx4qqC4op5pzImWPyB5tOBoQ5B2H25jEIcw7CXIKowpsHj3U60PxX9nj5Cry7AFQ3vfeUTEZPC9LsU72imaP_n8cf4lagog</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2480750499</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does selectively endorsing different approaches to treating mental illness affect lay beliefs about the cause and course of mental illness?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>O'Connor, Cliodhna ; Vaughan, Sarah</creator><creatorcontrib>O'Connor, Cliodhna ; Vaughan, Sarah</creatorcontrib><description>•Promoting particular treatment approaches in clinical communication or public discourse may have ancillary effects on lay beliefs about mental illness.•Lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have important implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma.•Effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when making and framing endorsement of a particular treatment. The current paper reports three experimental studies that investigate how selectively emphasising different treatment approaches (biological, psychological or social) for mental health difficulties affects lay beliefs about those illnesses. Online experimental vignettes exposed participants to different treatment narratives for a clinical case of Major Depressive Disorder (Study 1; n=164), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Study 2; n=173) and Schizophrenia (Study 3, n=170). Measures of causal attributions and illness perceptions assessed effects on beliefs about the causes and course of the illness. Emphasising psychological treatment of Major Depressive Disorder promoted more causal attributions to personal weakness, while endorsing biological treatment weakened confidence in individual control over the course of the illness. For Generalized Anxiety Disorder, stressing social treatment encouraged more causal attributions to personal weakness and lifestyle factors. Causal attributions for Schizophrenia did not shift according to treatment modality, but highlighting biological treatment made the symptoms appear more treatable, while emphasising psychological treatment made the illness seem more personally controllable. As lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma, effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when endorsing a particular treatment approach in public discourse or clinical communication.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-1781</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7123</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113726</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33486271</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>causal attributions ; Generalized Anxiety Disorder ; illness perceptions ; Major Depressive Disorder ; Schizophrenia ; treatment</subject><ispartof>Psychiatry research, 2021-03, Vol.297, p.113726-113726, Article 113726</ispartof><rights>2021</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-fc75045f559f476eadb8e7203679b461c7ccb53b6571a1d1ead0ac4be3cc66423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-fc75045f559f476eadb8e7203679b461c7ccb53b6571a1d1ead0ac4be3cc66423</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8134-075X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178121000238$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33486271$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>O'Connor, Cliodhna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaughan, Sarah</creatorcontrib><title>Does selectively endorsing different approaches to treating mental illness affect lay beliefs about the cause and course of mental illness?</title><title>Psychiatry research</title><addtitle>Psychiatry Res</addtitle><description>•Promoting particular treatment approaches in clinical communication or public discourse may have ancillary effects on lay beliefs about mental illness.•Lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have important implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma.•Effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when making and framing endorsement of a particular treatment. The current paper reports three experimental studies that investigate how selectively emphasising different treatment approaches (biological, psychological or social) for mental health difficulties affects lay beliefs about those illnesses. Online experimental vignettes exposed participants to different treatment narratives for a clinical case of Major Depressive Disorder (Study 1; n=164), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Study 2; n=173) and Schizophrenia (Study 3, n=170). Measures of causal attributions and illness perceptions assessed effects on beliefs about the causes and course of the illness. Emphasising psychological treatment of Major Depressive Disorder promoted more causal attributions to personal weakness, while endorsing biological treatment weakened confidence in individual control over the course of the illness. For Generalized Anxiety Disorder, stressing social treatment encouraged more causal attributions to personal weakness and lifestyle factors. Causal attributions for Schizophrenia did not shift according to treatment modality, but highlighting biological treatment made the symptoms appear more treatable, while emphasising psychological treatment made the illness seem more personally controllable. As lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma, effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when endorsing a particular treatment approach in public discourse or clinical communication.</description><subject>causal attributions</subject><subject>Generalized Anxiety Disorder</subject><subject>illness perceptions</subject><subject>Major Depressive Disorder</subject><subject>Schizophrenia</subject><subject>treatment</subject><issn>0165-1781</issn><issn>1872-7123</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc-O0zAQxi0EYsvCK6x85JLicRI7OQFa_korcYGz5UzG1JUbF9tZqc_AS-Oquxy4cPLI8_vm08zH2A2ILQhQb_bbYz7hLlHeSiFhC9BqqZ6wDQxaNhpk-5RtKtg3oAe4Yi9y3gtRyXF8zq7athuU1LBhvz9EyjxTICz-nsKJ0zLHlP3yk8_eOUq0FG6PxxQt7ipaIi-JbDkDh9qzgfsQFsqZ24pj4cGe-ETBk6tfU1wLLzviaNdM3C4zx7imWkb3j_7tS_bM2ZDp1cN7zX58-vj99ktz9-3z19v3dw12oErjUPei613fj67Tiuw8DaSlaJUep04BasSpbyfVa7AwQwWExW6iFlGpTrbX7PVlbl3q10q5mIPPSCHYheKajewGcbYYx4qqC4op5pzImWPyB5tOBoQ5B2H25jEIcw7CXIKowpsHj3U60PxX9nj5Cry7AFQ3vfeUTEZPC9LsU72imaP_n8cf4lagog</recordid><startdate>202103</startdate><enddate>202103</enddate><creator>O'Connor, Cliodhna</creator><creator>Vaughan, Sarah</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8134-075X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202103</creationdate><title>Does selectively endorsing different approaches to treating mental illness affect lay beliefs about the cause and course of mental illness?</title><author>O'Connor, Cliodhna ; Vaughan, Sarah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-fc75045f559f476eadb8e7203679b461c7ccb53b6571a1d1ead0ac4be3cc66423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>causal attributions</topic><topic>Generalized Anxiety Disorder</topic><topic>illness perceptions</topic><topic>Major Depressive Disorder</topic><topic>Schizophrenia</topic><topic>treatment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>O'Connor, Cliodhna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaughan, Sarah</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychiatry research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>O'Connor, Cliodhna</au><au>Vaughan, Sarah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does selectively endorsing different approaches to treating mental illness affect lay beliefs about the cause and course of mental illness?</atitle><jtitle>Psychiatry research</jtitle><addtitle>Psychiatry Res</addtitle><date>2021-03</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>297</volume><spage>113726</spage><epage>113726</epage><pages>113726-113726</pages><artnum>113726</artnum><issn>0165-1781</issn><eissn>1872-7123</eissn><abstract>•Promoting particular treatment approaches in clinical communication or public discourse may have ancillary effects on lay beliefs about mental illness.•Lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have important implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma.•Effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when making and framing endorsement of a particular treatment. The current paper reports three experimental studies that investigate how selectively emphasising different treatment approaches (biological, psychological or social) for mental health difficulties affects lay beliefs about those illnesses. Online experimental vignettes exposed participants to different treatment narratives for a clinical case of Major Depressive Disorder (Study 1; n=164), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Study 2; n=173) and Schizophrenia (Study 3, n=170). Measures of causal attributions and illness perceptions assessed effects on beliefs about the causes and course of the illness. Emphasising psychological treatment of Major Depressive Disorder promoted more causal attributions to personal weakness, while endorsing biological treatment weakened confidence in individual control over the course of the illness. For Generalized Anxiety Disorder, stressing social treatment encouraged more causal attributions to personal weakness and lifestyle factors. Causal attributions for Schizophrenia did not shift according to treatment modality, but highlighting biological treatment made the symptoms appear more treatable, while emphasising psychological treatment made the illness seem more personally controllable. As lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma, effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when endorsing a particular treatment approach in public discourse or clinical communication.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>33486271</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113726</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8134-075X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0165-1781
ispartof Psychiatry research, 2021-03, Vol.297, p.113726-113726, Article 113726
issn 0165-1781
1872-7123
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2480750499
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects causal attributions
Generalized Anxiety Disorder
illness perceptions
Major Depressive Disorder
Schizophrenia
treatment
title Does selectively endorsing different approaches to treating mental illness affect lay beliefs about the cause and course of mental illness?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T17%3A14%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20selectively%20endorsing%20different%20approaches%20to%20treating%20mental%20illness%20affect%20lay%20beliefs%20about%20the%20cause%20and%20course%20of%20mental%20illness?&rft.jtitle=Psychiatry%20research&rft.au=O'Connor,%20Cliodhna&rft.date=2021-03&rft.volume=297&rft.spage=113726&rft.epage=113726&rft.pages=113726-113726&rft.artnum=113726&rft.issn=0165-1781&rft.eissn=1872-7123&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113726&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2480750499%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2480750499&rft_id=info:pmid/33486271&rft_els_id=S0165178121000238&rfr_iscdi=true