1 Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
2 School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2019 Sep;65(6):507-514. doi: 10.1177/0020764019863084. Epub 2019 Jul 16.
The lay public often conceptualise mental disorders in a different way to mental health professionals, and this can negatively impact on outcomes when in treatment.
This study explored which disorders the lay public are familiar with, which theoretical models they understand, which they endorse and how they compared to a sample of psychiatrists.
The Maudsley Attitude Questionnaire (MAQ), typically used to assess mental health professional's concepts of mental disorders, was adapted for use by a lay community sample ( = 160). The results were compared with a sample of psychiatrists ( = 76).
The MAQ appeared to be accessible to the lay public, providing some interesting preliminary findings: in order, the lay sample reported having the best understanding of depression followed by generalised anxiety, schizophrenia and finally antisocial personality disorder. They best understood spiritualist, nihilist and social realist theoretical models of these disorders, but were most likely to endorse biological, behavioural and cognitive models. The lay public were significantly more likely to endorse some models for certain disorders suggesting a nuanced understanding of the cause and likely cure, of various disorders. Ratings often differed significantly from the sample of psychiatrists who were relatively steadfast in their endorsement of the biological model.
The adapted MAQ appeared accessible to the lay sample. Results suggest that the lay public are generally aligned with evidence-driven concepts of common disorders, but may not always understand or agree with how mental health professionals conceptualise them. The possible causes of these differences, future avenues for research and the implications for more collaborative, patient-clinician conceptualisations are discussed.
公众通常以不同于心理健康专业人员的方式来概念化精神障碍，这可能会对治疗时的结果产生负面影响。
本研究探讨了公众熟悉哪些障碍，他们理解哪些理论模型，他们认可哪些模型，以及他们与一组精神科医生相比如何。
通常用于评估心理健康专业人员对精神障碍概念的莫德斯利态度问卷（MAQ）被改编为适用于普通人群样本（n=160）。结果与一组精神科医生（n=76）进行了比较。
MAQ 似乎为普通大众所接受，提供了一些有趣的初步发现：按顺序，普通人群样本报告对抑郁症的理解最好，其次是广泛性焦虑症、精神分裂症，最后是反社会人格障碍。他们对这些障碍的精神主义者、虚无主义者和社会现实主义理论模型理解得最好，但最有可能认可生物、行为和认知模型。普通大众更有可能认可某些模型用于某些障碍，这表明他们对各种障碍的原因和可能的治疗方法有更细致的理解。评分往往与精神科医生样本有显著差异，后者相对坚定地认可生物模型。
改编后的 MAQ 似乎为普通人群所接受。结果表明，普通公众通常与常见障碍的循证概念一致，但他们可能并不总是理解或同意心理健康专业人员对这些障碍的概念化方式。讨论了这些差异的可能原因、未来的研究方向以及对更具协作性、医患概念化的影响。
