What is a mental disorder? Evaluating the lay concept of Mental Ill Health in the United States

A Comparative Study on Mental Disorder Conceptualization: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis

The conceptualization of mental disorders varies among professionals, impacting diagnosis, treatment, and research. This cross-disciplinary study aimed to understand how various professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, medical students, philosophers, and social sciences experts, perceive mental disorders, their attitudes towards the disease status of certain mental states, and their emphasis on biological versus social explanatory attributions. A survey of 371 participants assessed their agreement on a variety of conceptual statements and the relative influence of biological or social explanatory attribution for different mental states. Our findings revealed a consensus on the need for multiple explanatory perspectives in understanding psychiatric conditions and the influence of social, cultural, moral, and political values on diagnosis and classification. Psychiatrists demonstrated balanced bio-social explanatory attributions for various mental conditions, indicating a potential shift from the biological attribution predominantly observed among medical students and residents in psychiatry. Further research into factors influencing these differing perspectives is necessary.

Individual differences in the expansiveness of mental disorder concepts: development and validation of concept breadth scales

BACKGROUND

What people consider to be a mental disorder is likely to influence how they perceive others who are experiencing problems and whether they seek help for their own problems. However, no measure is available to assess individual differences in the expansiveness or breadth of concepts of mental disorder. Four studies aimed to develop and validate two such measures. The Concept Breadth-Vertical (CB-V) scale assesses variability in the severity threshold at which unusual behavior or experience is judged to reflect disorder, whereas the Concept Breadth-Horizontal (CB-H) scale assesses variability in the range of phenomena judged to be disorders.

METHODS

In a pilot study (N = 201) for the CB-V, participants read vignettes of varying severity for each of the 10 mental disorders, and rated whether the subject had a disorder. Study 1 (N = 502) used exploratory factor analyses to examine 10 CB-V items from the pilot study and 20 vignette-based items for constructing the CB-H. Study 2 (N = 298) employed confirmatory factor analysis to validate the scales' structure and examined their convergent validity with a measure of harm concept breadth and their discriminant validity with measures of mental health literacy. Study 3 (N = 298) explored associations of the scales with other mental health variables, including stigma and help-seeking attitudes.

RESULTS

Study 1 supported the unifactorial structure of each item set, refined each set into a scale, and demonstrated acceptable reliabilities. Study 2 provided support for the scales' convergent and discriminant validities. Study 3 showed that the scales were associated negatively with stigma, and positively with help-seeking attitudes and self-reported mental health problems. Studies 2 and 3 further indicated that younger and more politically liberal participants hold broader concepts of mental disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

The new concept breadth scales are psychometrically sound measures of a promising new concept in the study of beliefs and attitudes about mental health. Potential future research directions are discussed.

Beliefs about mental health in incarcerated males: a qualitative interview study

Introduction

Beliefs about mental health are shaped by the sociocultural context. Prisons have unique environmental and social features, and the prevalence of mental health problems in incarcerated populations is exceptionally high. These features make prisons especially interesting settings for exploring health beliefs. The aim of this study was to explore the conceptualizations of mental health and coping preferences in a prison environment.

Methods

Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with fifteen incarcerated males from three prisons in Northern Norway. The design draws on central elements from Grounded Theory.

Results

Mental health was perceived as distinct from mental illness by many of the participants. They coped with the prison environment by focusing on the things that gave them a sense of meaning and autonomy - this also formed their conceptualization of mental health. Furthermore, social interaction and activities were perceived as important to enhance and maintain mental well-being, however there were institutional barriers to using these coping strategies. The prison environment was integrated in the participants conceptualizations of mental health problems, and psychosocial stressors were emphasized in causal attributions. Biological and dispositional factors were less frequently mentioned. The participants preferred non-medical management for mental health problems and most displayed a reserved attitude towards psychotropic medications. The exception was attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, for which they held neurobiological causal beliefs, together with a corresponding preference for medication as treatment.

Conclusion

The main finding was a firm integration of the prison context in in the participants' beliefs about mental health. We theorize that fusion of prison conditions and mental health beliefs were brought on by the processes of prisonization, observing mental distress in peers and attempts to protect self-esteem by externalizing the causes for mental health problems. Access to activities, social time, and "someone to talk to" were perceived to be crucial for improving and preserving mental health.