Effects of media portrayals of alleged malpractice in psychiatry and response strategies to mitigate reputational damage: Randomized controlled trial.

Media allegations about malpractice in psychiatry are not uncommon, but little is known about their effects and how clinic management can effectively mitigate reputational damage. This study explored the impact of footage from a TV documentary raising allegations against a psychiatric clinic and assessed the effectiveness of different public response strategies from clinic management. N = 615 adults were randomized to one of four intervention groups watching allegations of malpractice in a psychiatric clinic or unrelated footage (control). Each intervention group further included one specific fictitious public response from clinic management: Denial, attack the accuser, apology, or decline to respond. The primary outcome was attitudes toward psychiatry, assessed before and after the intervention. Secondary outcomes (attitudes toward the staff of the clinic, intentions to recommend the clinic) were measured post-intervention. There was a decrease of favorable attitudes toward psychiatry across intervention groups (F = 14.46, p < .001, η = .102). Favorable attitudes toward the clinic staff (MD = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.02-0.96, p < .05) and intentions to recommend the clinic to a friend (MD = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.02-0.81, p < .05) were greater when accusations were denied as compared to no response. Media portrayals featuring allegations of psychiatric malpractice cause reputational damage not only to the specific clinic facing allegations, but also to the entire field. Public responses can partially mitigate the reputational damage and are preferable to no response.