Beliefs of people taking antidepressants about causes of depression and reasons for increased prescribing rates

Examining illness perceptions over time: an exploratory prospective analysis of causal attributions in individuals with depressive symptoms

BACKGROUND

According to the Common-Sense Model of Illness Representations, illness beliefs, such as causal attributions, can influence the way people assess and cope with their illness and vice versa. To date, causal attributions in people with depressive symptoms have been studied mainly cross-sectionally, quantitatively and independently. The purpose of this study is to examine the causal attributions of people with depressive symptoms in terms of their stability over time, dependence on treatment experience, and differentiation of causal concepts.

METHODS

In a population-based prospective sample, people with at least mild depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 Score ≥ 5) were interviewed via telephone at T0 and twelve months later (T1). Causal attributions were assessed using the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. After the open responses were qualitatively analysed using a deductive-inductive approach, stability over time was assessed for causal attributions and concepts by comparing answers between the two time points. Subsequent exploratory quantitative analyses were conducted using chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 471 individuals (age M = 53.9, 53.6% female) with a mean PHQ-9 Score of 8.4 were included in the analyses. Causal attributions related to participants' social environment, workplace, and past are the most stable over time. However, individuals with and without a time-stable causal concept showed no differences in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, severity of depressive symptoms, risk of comorbidity, and treatment experiences. Overall, the causal concepts of people with depressive symptoms appear to be very diverse. Those with treatment experience (M = 2.21, SD = 0.80) named significantly more causal attributions compared to people without treatment experience (M = 1.98, SD = 0.81, t(471) = -3.060, p < 0.01). In addition, logistic regression analyses revealed that treatment-experienced respondents were more likely to attribute "childhood/youth/parental home" and "predisposition".

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals that people with treatment experience tend to report treatment-congruent causal attributions, such as childhood and family environment, as well as predisposition, more frequently. Understanding how causal attributions and concepts are formed and change can be helpful for addressing causal attributions in treatment. Future studies should take into account the benefits of employing qualitative survey methods for exploring causal attributions.

Trace analysis of 47 psychotropic medications in environmental samples by ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS)

Psychotropic medications are one of the most prescribed pharmaceuticals in the world. Given their frequent detection and ecotoxicity to the no-target organism, the emission of these medications into environments has gradually draw attention. The study developed a sensitive and reliable analytic method to simultaneously investigate 47 psychotropic medications in four matrices: wastewater, surface water, activated sludge, and sediment by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI-MS/MS). These 47 target analytes include 24 antidepressants, 17 antianxiety drugs, 5 anticonvulsants, and 1 relevant hormone. Solid phase extraction (SPE) was employed to extract analytes from water-phase samples. Ultrasonic Solvent Extraction method with Enhanced Matrix Removal clean-up (USE-EMR) was utilized to extract target compounds from solid-phase samples, which requires more straightforward and convenient procedures than previous methods. The extraction recoveries of all analytes ranged from 80 % to 120 % in these four sample matrices. In this study, The limit of quantitation for 47 psychotropic medications were 0.15 ng/L (estazolam) to 2.27 ng/L (lorazepam), 0.08 ng/L (desvenlafaxine) to 2 ng/L (mianserin), 0.22 ng/g (dry weight, dw) (nordiazepam) to 3.65 ng/g (dw) (lorazepam), and 0.07 ng/g (dw) (carbamazepine) to 2.85 ng/g (lorazepam), in wastewater, surface water, sludge, and sediment, respectively. In addition, the developed method was employed to analyse actual samples in two wastewater treatment plants and their receiving rivers. Carbamazepine, escitalopram, clozapine, desvenlafaxine, diazepam, lamotrigine, sertraline, temazepam, and venlafaxine were nearly ubiquitous in all matrices. Moreover, this study indicated that the inadequate removal efficiencies of psychotropic medications in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) had resulted in a persistent discharge of these contaminants from human sources into environments.

Occurrence, hazard, and risk of psychopharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in European surface waters

This study aimed to provide insights into the risk posed by psychopharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in European surface waters, and to identify current knowledge gaps hampering this risk assessment. First, the availability and quality of data on the concentrations of psychopharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in surface waters (occurrence) and on the toxicity to aquatic organisms (hazard) were reviewed. If both occurrence and ecotoxicity data were available, risk quotients (risk) were calculated. Where abundant ecotoxicity data were available, a species sensitivity distribution (SSD) was constructed, from which the hazardous concentration for 5% of the species (HC₅) was derived, allowing to derive integrated multi-species risks. A total of 702 compounds were categorised as psychopharmaceuticals and illicit drugs based on a combination of all 502 anatomical therapeutic class (ATC) 'N' pharmaceuticals and a list of illicit drugs according to the Dutch Opium Act. Of these, 343 (49%) returned occurrence data, while only 105 (15%) returned ecotoxicity data. Moreover, many ecotoxicity tests used irrelevant endpoints for neurologically active compounds, such as mortality, which may underestimate the hazard of psychopharmaceuticals. Due to data limitations, risks could only be assessed for 87 (12%) compounds, with 23 (3.3%) compounds indicating a potential risk, and several highly prescribed drugs returned neither occurrence nor ecotoxicity data. Primary bottlenecks in risk calculation included the lack of ecotoxicity data, a lack of diversity of test species and ecotoxicological end points, and large disparities between well studied and understudied compounds for both occurrence and toxicity data. This study identified which compounds merit concern, as well as the many compounds that lack the data for any calculation of risk, driving research priorities. Despite the large knowledge gaps, we concluded that the presence of a substantial part (26%) of data-rich psychopharmaceuticals in surface waters present an ecological risk for aquatic non-target organisms.

Depression: why drugs and electricity are not the answer

The dominant view within mental health services and research suggests that feeling depressed is a kind of medical illness, partially caused by various biological deficits which are somehow corrected by physical interventions. This article critically appraises evidence for the effectiveness and value of antidepressant drugs and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the two principle physical treatments recommended for depression. It also describes the negative effects of these interventions and raises concerns about how they impact the brain. We propose an alternative understanding that recognises depression as an emotional and meaningful response to unwanted life events and circumstances. This perspective demands that we address the social conditions that make depression likely and suggests that a combination of politics and common sense needs to guide us in providing help for one another when we are suffering in this way. This alternative view is increasingly endorsed around the world, including by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and service users who have suffered negative consequences of physical treatments that modify brain functions in ways that are not well-understood.

How important are informed consent, informed choice, and patient-doctor relationships, when prescribing antipsychotic medication?

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications (APs) are used for people with psychosis diagnoses and, increasingly for other problems and groups.

AIMS

This study examines how APs are prescribed, from the perspective of recipients.

METHODS

757 people, from 30 countries, responded to questions about their experiences with APs, in an online survey.

RESULTS

Most (70%) were told nothing about adverse effects. Fewer than 2% recalled being told about the risks of diabetes, suicidality, sexual dysfunction, or reduced life span. None recalled being told about reduced brain volume or withdrawal effects. Only 28% recalled being offered other treatments; with only 14% offered talking therapies. 46% were not told how long to take the APs; and, of those who were told something, 48% were told to take them forever. Most respondents (76%) were not told how APs work. Only 19% were satisfied with the prescribing process, and only 25% reported a good, or very good, relationship with the prescriber. Information, satisfaction with the process, and the prescriber relationship were all positively related to three self-reported outcomes: reduction of problems the drugs were prescribed for, general helpfulness, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Steps need to be taken to ensure people prescribed antipsychotics are fully informed, especially about adverse effects and alternatives.

Investigating perceived heritability of mental health disorders and attitudes toward genetic testing in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia

Our beliefs about the heritability of psychiatric traits may influence how we respond to the use of genetic information in this area. In the present study, we aim to inform future education campaigns as well as genetic counseling interventions by exploring common fears and misunderstandings associated with learning about genetic predispositions for mental health disorders. We surveyed 3,646 genetic research participants from Australia, and 960 members of the public from the United Kingdom, and the United States, and evaluated attitudes toward psychiatric genetic testing. Participants were asked hypothetical questions about their interest in psychiatric genetic testing, perceived usefulness of psychiatric genetic testing, and beliefs about malleability of behavior, among others. We also asked them to estimate the heritability of alcohol dependence, schizophrenia, and major depression. We found a high interest in psychiatric genetic testing. In most cases, more than a third of the participants showed serious concerns related to learning about personal genetic predisposition, such as not wanting to have children if they knew they had a high genetic predisposition, or not wanting to choose a partner with a high genetic predisposition for a mental health problem. Finally, we found a significant association between most participants' attitudes and their lay estimates of heritability, which highlights the complexity of educating the public about genetics.

Causal explanations of depression on perceptions of and likelihood to choose cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressant medications as depression treatments

OBJECTIVES

This research examined whether people's causal explanations of depression were associated with acceptability and efficacy-related treatment perceptions and likelihood to choose cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication (ADM) as depression treatments.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional internet-based design was used.

METHODS

A general population sample was used over a clinical sample to study those who had not yet chosen to enter treatment. A total of 422 individuals were recruited through a crowdsourcing platform to complete an online survey. Measures included perceived causes of depression, perceived acceptability, efficacy and choice likelihood for ADM and CBT, and demographics.

RESULTS

Those with biological causal explanations of depression were more favourable towards ADM on all three perceptual measures of acceptability, efficacy and likelihood to choose ADM as a treatment for depression. Personality/character-related causal explanations of depression were positively related to perceived efficacy and likelihood to choose CBT as a depression treatment. Those endorsing environmental stress causes of depression were more likely to choose CBT as a treatment for depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicated that people's beliefs about the causes of depression were related to their perceptions of and likelihoods to choose ADM and CBT as depression treatments.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Provides evidence of how different causal explanations of depression influence sufferers' likelihoods to choose ADM and CBT as possible treatments for their depression. Provides support for exploring potential patients' causal explanations about depression prior to recommending a treatment regimen.

Mindsets in the clinic: Applying mindset theory to clinical psychology

Beliefs about the malleability of attributes, also known as mindsets, have been studied for decades in social-personality psychology and education. Here, I review the many applications of mindset theory to clinical psychology and psychotherapy. First, I review social psychological and cognitive neuroscience evidence that mindsets and mindset-related messages are, to a large extent, focused on emotional tolerance. Specifically, the growth mindset, or the belief that attributes are malleable, encourages confronting and tolerating anxiety, frustration, and disappointment in healthy and adaptive ways that promote resilience, whereas the fixed mindset and related messages discourage the experience of these emotions and often leads to helplessness. Second, I review the emerging research on the anxiety mindset and discuss its relevance to clinical work. A model is proposed illustrating connections between mindsets, emotion regulation strategies, treatment preferences, and outcomes. Case examples are used to illustrate practical applications. I conclude that mindsets can inform psychotherapy, research, and public policy.

Stressors and chemical imbalances: Beliefs about the causes of depression in an acute psychiatric treatment sample

BACKGROUND

Public perceptions of mental illness are increasingly construed in neurobiological and genetic terms. Accumulating evidence suggests there are some unintended consequences of these explanations, including reduced optimism for recovery among individuals with depression. However, little is known about how these beliefs relate to treatment process and outcomes in a psychiatric treatment setting, a gap this study aimed to fill.

METHODS

We examined etiological beliefs about depression in a sample of patients (N = 279) seeking acute treatment in a behaviorally-based therapy program at a psychiatric hospital and examined relations with treatment expectations and outcomes.

RESULTS

We found that although psychosocial explanations of depression were most popular, biogenetic beliefs, particularly the belief that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, were prevalent in this sample. Further, the chemical imbalance belief related to poorer treatment expectations. This relationship was moderated by symptoms of depression, with more depressed individuals showing a stronger relationship between chemical imbalance beliefs and lower treatment expectations. Finally, the chemical imbalance belief predicted more depressive symptoms after the treatment program ended for a 2-week measure of depression (but not for a 24-hour measure of depression), controlling for psychiatric symptoms at admission, inpatient hospitalizations, and treatment expectations.

LIMITATIONS

The sample was homogenous in terms of race and ethnicity and we did not assess how patients came to their beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

Together, the results illustrate the correlates and possible impacts of etiological beliefs in a real-world clinical setting and invite a critical discussion about predominant messages about the etiology of depression.

A survey of UK general practitioners about depression, antidepressants and withdrawal: implementing the 2019 Public Health England report

BACKGROUND

In 2019, a literature review indicated that more than half of people who try to come off antidepressants experience withdrawal effects. Both the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the Royal College of Psychiatrists updated their positions in line with that review, and Public Health England published a 152-page report called Dependence and withdrawal associated with some prescribed medicines: an evidence review. The report made several recommendations relevant to general practice.

METHOD

In order to facilitate implementation of these recommendations, an online survey was designed to explore United Kingdom general practitioner (GP) experiences, opinions, knowledge and needs in relation to depression, ADs and withdrawal. A total of 66 GPs had completed the survey when COVID-19 occurred.

RESULTS

In keeping with previous findings, this small sample of GPs had a predominantly psycho-social perspective on the causes of, and treatments for, depression. They broadly considered ADs effective for moderate/severe depression and ineffective for minimal/mild depression, for which they preferred psychological therapies and social prescribing. There was a marked lack of consistency in GPs' knowledge about the incidence and duration of withdrawal effects. Only a minority (29%) felt their knowledge about withdrawal was 'adequate' and fewer (17%) believed this about their 'Ability to distinguish between withdrawal effects and return of the original problem (e.g. depression)'. Two-thirds (68%) would like more training on these matters.

CONCLUSION

It is hoped that even this small sample will be helpful when designing, and seeking funding for, GP training programmes, and when implementing the PHE recommendations for support services, based in the primary care system, for the millions of people contemplating or initiating withdrawal from ADs every year in the UK.

Illness beliefs about depression among patients seeking depression care and patients seeking cardiac care: an exploratory analysis using a mixed method design

BACKGROUND

Treatment of depression in cardiac patients is difficult. Patients' illness beliefs regarding depression are associated with outcomes. The aim of the mixed-methods study was to test whether patients in routine care for depression differ from patients with depression in routine care for cardiac diseases regarding illness beliefs about depression.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of n = 217 patients with depressive disorder was recruited from routine care for depression (N = 148) and routine care for cardiac diseases (N = 69). Beliefs about depression were measured by the Brief-Illness Perception Questionnaire. Causal beliefs were categorized using qualitative methods. To investigate differences regarding other illness beliefs, we performed an ANCOVA controlling for sociodemographic and clinical differences by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Patients in routine care for cardiac diseases attributed their depression more often to physical illnesses (48% vs. 16%) and less often to their self (30% vs. 47%), problems at work (25% vs. 35%), childhood (25% vs. 30%), and negative life events (19% vs. 25%) in contrast to patients in routine care for depression. Patients in routine care for cardiac diseases reported beliefs of lower disability, burden, and treatment-control and of higher self-control in contrast to patients in routine care for depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Illness beliefs especially causal beliefs differ between patients in routine care for cardiac diseases and routine care for depression. Future research should investigate effects of these illness beliefs. We recommend exploring patients' illness beliefs about depression in routine care for cardiac diseases and routine care for depression.

Do biogenetic causal beliefs reduce mental illness stigma in people with mental illness and in mental health professionals? A systematic review

Viewing mental illness as an 'illness like any other' and promoting biogenetic causes have been explored as a stigma-reduction strategy. The relationship between causal beliefs and mental illness stigma has been researched extensively in the general public, but has gained less attention in more clinically-relevant populations (i.e. people with mental illness and mental health professionals). A systematic review examining whether endorsing biogenetic causes decreases mental illness stigma in people with mental illness and mental health professionals was undertaken using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Multiple databases were searched, and studies that explored the relationship between biogenetic causal beliefs and mental illness stigma in people with mental illness or mental health professionals were considered. Studies were included if they focussed on depression, schizophrenia, or mental illness in general, were in English, and had adult participants. The search identified 11 journal articles reporting on 15 studies, which were included in this review. Of these, only two provided evidence that endorsing biogenetic causes was associated with less mental illness stigma in people with mental illness or mental health professionals. The majority of studies in the present review (n = 10) found that biogenetic causal beliefs were associated with increased stigma or negative attitudes towards mental illness. The present review highlights the lack of research exploring the impacts of endorsing biogenetic causes in people with mental illness and mental health professionals. Clinical implications associated with these results are discussed, and suggestions are made for further research that examines the relationship between causal beliefs and treatment variables.

"It's often liberating": consumers discuss causal beliefs in the treatment process

Background: Causal beliefs are thought to influence consumers' perceptions of their mental illness and self-stigma, and may impact treatment and recovery. Understanding consumers' perspective on causes being addressed in treatment is vital to help guide future research and improve services. Aim: This study aimed to explore consumers' views on causes of mental illness being addressed in treatment, along with their subjective experiences of how causes were focused on in their treatment. Methods: Using a qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 consumers who self-identified as having a mental illness. A thematic analytic framework was used to identify and analyse themes that emerged within the data. Results: Consumers believed that causes were important and should be addressed in treatment, and identified several associated benefits including increased insight/personal understanding of their illness, symptom management and relapse prevention and reduced self-blame. Negative consequences and considerations were also identified. Conclusion: Causes help consumers make sense of their illness, and consumers would like causes to be addressed in treatment. More research is needed on how mental health professionals can address causes effectively as consumers are currently dissatisfied with how causes were discussed in their treatment.

Beliefs about the causes of depression and recovery and their impact on adherence, dosage, and successful tapering of antidepressants

BACKGROUND

Continuation of antidepressant medication (ADM) after remission is widely used to prevent depressive relapse/recurrence. Little is known about predictors of ADM use in terms of adherence, dosage, and successful tapering. The current study aimed to explore beliefs about the causes of depression and recovery (i.e., causal beliefs) and to examine whether they predict ADM use.

METHODS

The data were drawn from a controlled trial and an extension of this trial with additional experience sampling. In total, 289 remitted patients with recurrent depression (ADM ≥ 6 months) were randomly assigned to Preventive Cognitive Therapy (PCT) with ADM tapering, PCT with maintenance ADM, or maintenance ADM alone. Adherence, ADM dosage, and causal beliefs regarding the first and last depressive episodes were explored via questionnaires.

RESULTS

Most patients mentioned stressful life events as cause of depression, although more patients tended to endorse external causes for the first episode and internal causes for the last episode. ADM was most often mentioned as helpful during recovery from both episodes. Over half of all patients were adherent and under half of the patients in the tapering condition were able to complete the taper. Causal beliefs did not predict ADM use.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that causal beliefs play little role in the use of maintenance ADM. More information is needed on factors contributing to successful tapering. The results must be interpreted with caution as this is not a naturalistic study and the results might be biased toward a more favorable view regarding ADM.

What Do Patients Think about the Cause of Their Mental Disorder? A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Causal Beliefs of Mental Disorder in Inpatients in Psychosomatic Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Patients' causal beliefs about their mental disorders are important for treatment because they affect illness-related behaviours. However, there are few studies exploring patients' causal beliefs about their mental disorder.

OBJECTIVES

(a) To qualitatively explore patients' causal beliefs of their mental disorder, (b) to explore frequencies of patients stating causal beliefs, and (c) to investigate differences of causal beliefs according to patients' primary diagnoses.

METHOD

Inpatients in psychosomatic rehabilitation were asked an open-ended question about their three most important causal beliefs about their mental illness. Answers were obtained from 678 patients, with primary diagnoses of depression (N = 341), adjustment disorder (N = 75), reaction to severe stress (N = 57) and anxiety disorders (N = 40). Two researchers developed a category system inductively and categorised the reported causal beliefs. Qualitative analysis has been supplemented by logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The causal beliefs were organized into twelve content-related categories. Causal beliefs referring to "problems at work" (47%) and "problems in social environment" (46%) were most frequently mentioned by patients with mental disorders. 35% of patients indicate causal beliefs related to "self/internal states". Patients with depression and patients with anxiety disorders stated similar causal beliefs, whereas patients with reactions to severe stress and adjustment disorders stated different causal beliefs in comparison to patients with depression.

LIMITATIONS

There was no opportunity for further exploration, because we analysed written documents.

CONCLUSIONS

These results add a detailed insight to mentally ill patients' causal beliefs to illness perception literature. Additionally, evidence about differences in frequencies of causal beliefs between different illness groups complement previous findings. For future research it is important to clarify the relation between patients' causal beliefs and the chosen treatment.

Do GPs and psychiatrists recommend alternatives when prescribing anti-depressants?

This study explores whether a partial explanation for high antidepressant prescription rates is the failure of prescribers to recommend alternatives. 1829 New Zealand adults were asked which of six non-pharmacological treatment approaches were recommended when prescribed anti-depressants. The majority (82%) received at least one recommendation and 32% received three or more, most commonly 'Counsellor/Psychologist/Psychotherapist' (74%) and Exercise Schedule (43%). It cannot, therefore, be concluded that failing to consider non-pharmacological treatments is a major cause of high prescribing rates. Being younger and more severely depressed were both positively related to number of recommendations. Psychiatrists made significantly more recommendations than GPs.

Conflict in Men's Experiences With Antidepressants

While men's experiences of depression and help seeking are known to be shaped by gender, there is little research which examines their experience of using antidepressants to treat this. This study is based on in-depth, narrative-style interviews with 20 New Zealand men who had used antidepressants. The analysis identified a number of areas of conflict in the men's accounts of using this medication. Conflict centered on the way taking antidepressants was seen as undermining personal control while also allowing users to take charge of their problems; facilitating general functioning while undermining sexual functioning; relieving emotional distress while undermining emotional vitality; and the tension participants felt between making autonomous judgments about the value of antidepressants and relying on the "expertise" of others. Participants negotiated these conflicts in a variety of ways. In some cases, antidepressants were positioned as being able to affirm aspects of traditional masculinity, while a smaller number of participants managed these conflicts by redefining aspects of their own masculinity in ways that contrasted with dominant constructions. This research is limited by the sample of older, more privileged men in the context of New Zealand culture which favors macho forms of masculinity. In similar contexts, mental health practitioners should be mindful of the conflicts that men might experience in relation to their antidepressant use. Facilitating men's exploration of these issues may enable them to make better decisions about treatment options or to provide more effective support to those who have opted for antidepressant treatment.

Neuroessentialism: Theoretical and Clinical Considerations

Neuroessentialism is the view that the definitive way of explaining human psychological experience is by reference to the brain and its activity. This leads to the view that psychological disorders, such as depression, are fundamentally brain disorders. Neuroessentialism has grown increasingly popular for academic and public audiences. It has also attracted critics. This article describes neuroessentialism, the reasons for its rising prominence, and the theoretical and clinical concerns it raises. It connects these concerns to evidence from empirical studies that suggest that neuroessentialistic conceptualization of depression can have negative clinical impacts that need to be considered by mental health professionals.

What is important in being cured from depression? Discordance between physicians and patients (1)

AIMS

The comparison of what physicians and patients consider important in being cured from depression.

METHODS

426 outpatients (in primary care and in psychiatric care) with a clinical diagnosis of major depression were included: at the start of antidepressant treatment, the importance of a range of items for being cured from depression (depressive, anxious and somatic symptoms, positive affect, functional impairment, quality of life) was assessed in physicians and patients separately and a ranking was made; after 3 months of treatment, the importance of these items for being cured from depression was re-assessed in the patients.

RESULTS

The items ranked top 10 by physicians mainly contain depressive symptoms while those ranked top 10 by patients mainly contain positive affect items and this attention to positive affect even increases at 3 months follow-up and is higher in patients with recurrent depression than in patients with a first episode of depression. Somatic symptoms consistently get the lowest ranking, as well in physicians as in patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians differ significantly from patients in what they consider important for 'being cured from depression': physicians mainly focus on alleviation of depressive symptoms while patients mainly focus on the restoration of positive affect.

Beliefs of people taking antidepressants about the causes of their own depression

BACKGROUND

The beliefs of people receiving treatment about the causes of their own mental health problems are researched less often than the causal beliefs of the public, but have important implications for relationships with prescribers, treatment choices and recovery.

METHOD

An online survey on a range of beliefs about depression, and experiences with antidepressants, was completed by 1829 New Zealand adults prescribed anti-depressants in the preceding five years, 97.4% of whom proceeded to take antidepressants.

RESULTS

Six of 17 beliefs about the causes of their own depression were endorsed by more than half the sample: chemical imbalance, family stress, work stress, heredity, relationship problems and distressing events in childhood. There were some marked differences in content, structure and level of conviction of beliefs about one׳s own depression and the sample׳s previously published beliefs about depression in general. There were also significant differences between the beliefs of demographic groupings. Regression analyses revealed that self-reported effectiveness of the antidepressants was positively associated with bio-genetic causal beliefs. The quality of the relationship with the prescribing doctor was positively related to a belief in chemical imbalance as a cause and negatively related to a belief in unemployment as a cause.

LIMITATIONS

The convenience sample may have been biased towards a favourable view of bio-genetic explanations, since 83% reported that the medication reduced their depression.

CONCLUSIONS

People experiencing depression hold complex, multifactorial and idiosyncratic sets of beliefs about the causes of their own depression, apparently based at least in part on their own life experiences and circumstances. Exploring those beliefs may enhance the doctor-patient relationship and selection of appropriate treatment modality.