Lay beliefs about the causes and treatment of depression: Tests of measurement models and associations

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.

Causal beliefs about mental illness: A scoping review

Research on causal beliefs about mental illness-the beliefs people hold about what causes a particular mental illness, or mental illnesses in general-is split across a number of theories and disciplines. Although research on this subject has provided a number of insights and practical applications, the diversity of theories, terminology, and keywords makes it challenging for a new reader to gain a comprehensive understanding. We sought to address this by conducting a systematic scoping review of research on causal beliefs. This review included English-language articles from any year that mentioned causal beliefs for mental illness in their title or abstract. We identified articles in two stages. In the first stage, we used a narrow set of search terms referring specifically to causal beliefs (1227 records identified, 417 included). In the second stage, we used a comprehensive set of terms relevant to research on causal beliefs (10,418 records identified, 3838 included). We analyzed articles qualitatively, organizing them into one of five theories or categories: the common-sense model of self-regulation, explanatory models, mental health literacy, biogenetic causal beliefs, and other research on causal beliefs. We provide a comprehensive summary of these literatures in terms of their history, typical research questions and study design, findings, and practical applications. These theories differ in their theoretical orientation towards causal beliefs, research methods, findings, and applications. However, they broadly share a view of causal beliefs as multifaceted, culturally determined, and relevant for additional psychosocial variables such as mental illness stigma and help-seeking. We conclude by making recommendations for researchers, clinicians, public health messaging, and for individuals with mental illness.