Author
Listed:
- Christina Seery
- Jessica Bramham
- Cliódhna O’Connor
Abstract
Background: Limited research has investigated whether replacing psychiatric diagnosis with psychological formulation-based approaches has implications for lay attitudes to mental health. The present study investigates experimentally whether presenting psychosis in terms of a schizophrenia diagnosis vs. formulation narrative affects stigma and treatment attitudes in the general public.Method: The study employed a between-groups experimental vignette design, with data collected online. 351 participants (64.1% female, aged 18–66,) read a vignette about a person experiencing psychosis, defined with either a diagnosis of schizophrenia or a narrative-based formulation. Participants completed a battery of scales measuring their attitudes to the vignette character (social distance, attribution, recommended treatment options, mental help-seeking attitudes).Results: Desired social distance was significantly greater in participants exposed to the diagnostic label of schizophrenia. The schizophrenia label led participants to rate medical care as significantly more helpful relative to the formulation condition but did not affect ratings of specialist or community care or mental help-seeking attitudes.Conclusions: These findings suggest that a psychological formulation approach may slightly lessen stigma-related attitudes, relative to traditional diagnostic systems. Popularisation of formulation models need not compromise general orientations to help-seeking or perceived helpfulness of specialist care but may lead to less medicalised treatment preferences.
Suggested Citation
Christina Seery & Jessica Bramham & Cliódhna O’Connor, 2021.
"Effects of a psychiatric diagnosis vs a clinical formulation on lay attitudes to people with psychosis,"
Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 361-372, October.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:361-372
DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2021.1901302
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:361-372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPSY20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.