IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v63y2017i5p426-432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mental health clinicians’ beliefs about the causes of psychosis: Differences between professions and relationship to treatment preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy Carter
  • John Read
  • Melissa Pyle
  • Heather Law
  • Anthony P Morrison

Abstract

Background: Previous evidence suggests that how an individual conceptualises the cause of a health problem can impact on subsequent perceptions and behaviour. Aims: This study explored the beliefs about the causes of psychosis in a group of mental health professionals. The study also sought to examine the relationship between causal beliefs and the perceived helpfulness of different treatments. Methods: A total of 219 clinicians completed a questionnaire about the provision of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and antipsychotic medication for their clients who were experiencing psychosis and their opinions about the helpfulness of these treatments. Causal beliefs were also assessed. Results and conclusions: Clients were twice as likely to be offered medication compared to CBT. Clinicians held a multifactorial model of aetiology, but were more likely to endorse psychosocial causes than biological factors. Clinicians with psychosocial beliefs were more likely to rate CBT as effective, whereas those with biological models were more likely to endorse the helpfulness of medication. Clinicians adopt a multi-causal approach when conceptualising the aetiology of psychosis and these beliefs were related to opinions about the helpfulness of treatment. Beliefs about the aetiology of their client’s experiences could blind clinicians to the benefits of offering different approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy Carter & John Read & Melissa Pyle & Heather Law & Anthony P Morrison, 2017. "Mental health clinicians’ beliefs about the causes of psychosis: Differences between professions and relationship to treatment preferences," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 63(5), pages 426-432, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:63:y:2017:i:5:p:426-432
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764017709849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764017709849
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764017709849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:socpsy:v:63:y:2017:i:5:p:426-432. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.