142
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Public beliefs about treatment and outcome of mental disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Surveys of the public in a number of countries have shown poor recognition of mental disorders and beliefs about treatment that often diverge from those of health professionals. This lack of mental health literacy can limit the optimal use of treatment services. Australia and Japan are countries with very different mental health care systems, with Japan emphasising hospital care and Australia more oriented to community care. Japan is also more collectivist and Australia more individualist in values. These differences might influence recognition of disorders and beliefs about treatment in the two countries.

          Methods

          Surveys of the public were carried out in each country using as similar a methodology as feasible. In both countries, household interviews were carried out concerning beliefs in relation to one of four case vignettes, describing either depression, depression with suicidal thoughts, early schizophrenia or chronic schizophrenia. In Australia, the survey involved a national sample of 3998 adults aged 18 years or over. In Japan, the survey involved 2000 adults aged between 20 and 69 from 25 regional sites spread across the country.

          Results

          The Japanese public were found to be more reluctant to use psychiatric labels, particularly for the depression cases. The Japanese were also more reluctant to discuss mental disorders with others outside the family. They had a strong belief in counsellors, but not in GPs. They generally believe in the benefits of treatment, but are not optimistic about full recovery. By contrast, Australians used psychiatric labels more often, particularly "depression". They were also more positive about the benefits of seeking professional help, but had a strong preference for lifestyle interventions and tended to be negative about some psychiatric medications. Australians were positive about both counsellors and GPs. Psychiatric hospitalization and ECT were seen negatively in both countries.

          Conclusion

          There are some major differences between Australia and Japan in recognition of disorders and beliefs about treatment. Some of these may relate to the different health care systems, but the increasing openness about mental health in Australia is also likely to be an explanatory factor.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mental health literacy. Public knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders.

          A. JORM (2000)
          Although the benefits of public knowledge of physical diseases are widely accepted, knowledge about mental disorders (mental health literacy) has been comparatively neglected. To introduce the concept of mental health literacy to a wider audience, to bring together diverse research relevant to the topic and to identify gaps in the area. A narrative review within a conceptual framework. Many members of the public cannot recognise specific disorders or different types of psychological distress. They differ from mental health experts in their beliefs about the causes of mental disorders and the most effective treatments. Attitudes which hinder recognition and appropriate help-seeking are common. Much of the mental health information most readily available to the public is misleading. However, there is some evidence that mental health literacy can be improved. If the public's mental health literacy is not improved, this may hinder public acceptance of evidence-based mental health care. Also, many people with common mental disorders may be denied effective self-help and may not receive appropriate support from others in the community.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            "Mental health literacy": a survey of the public's ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment.

            To assess the public's recognition of mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of various treatments ("mental health literacy"). A cross-sectional survey, in 1995, with structured interviews using vignettes of a person with either depression or schizophrenia. A representative national sample of 2031 individuals aged 18-74 years; 1010 participants were questioned about the depression vignette and 1021 about the schizophrenia vignette. Most of the participants recognised the presence of some sort of mental disorder: 72% for the depression vignette (correctly labelled as depression by 39%) and 84% for the schizophrenia vignette (correctly labelled by 27%). When various people were rated as likely to be helpful or harmful for the person described in the vignette for depression, general practitioners (83%) and counsellors (74%) were most often rated as helpful, with psychiatrists (51%) and psychologists (49%) less so. Corresponding data for the schizophrenia vignette were: counsellors (81%), GPs (74%), psychiatrists (71%) and psychologists (62%). Many standard psychiatric treatments (antidepressants, antipsychotics, electroconvulsive therapy, admission to a psychiatric ward) were more often rated as harmful than helpful, and some nonstandard treatments were rated highly (increased physical or social activity, relaxation and stress management, reading about people with similar problems). Vitamins and special diets were more often rated as helpful than were antidepressants and antipsychotics. If mental disorders are to be recognised early in the community and appropriate intervention sought, the level of mental health literacy needs to be raised. Further, public understanding of psychiatric treatments can be considerably improved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Prevalence, comorbidity, disability and service utilisation. Overview of the Australian National Mental Health Survey.

              Health planning should be based on data about prevalence, disability and services used. To determine the prevalence of ICD-10 disorders and associated comorbidity, disability and service utilisation. We surveyed a national probability sample of Australian households using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview and other measures. The sample size was 10 641 adults, response rate 78%. Close to 23% reported at least one disorder in the past 12 months and 14% a current disorder. Comorbidity was associated with disability and service use. Only 35% of people with a mental disorder in the 12 months prior to the survey had consulted for a mental problem during that year, and most had seen a general practitioner. Only half of those who were disabled or had multiple comorbidity had consulted and of those who had not, more than half said they did not need treatment. The high rate of not consulting among those with disability and comorbidity is an important public health problem. As Australia has a universal health insurance scheme, the barriers to effective care must be patient knowledge and physician competence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1741-7015
                2005
                9 July 2005
                : 3
                : 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ORYGEN Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Locked Bag 10, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
                [3 ]Department of Social Work, The Faculty of Human Sociology, Nagasaki International University, 2825-7 Huis Ten Bosch-cho, Sasebo-shi, Nagasaki, 859-3298, Japan
                [4 ]Department of Human Studies, Bunkyo Gakuin University,1196 Kamekubo, Oi-machi, Iruma-gun, Saitama 356-8533, Japan
                Article
                1741-7015-3-12
                10.1186/1741-7015-3-12
                1177951
                16004615
                c509c2f4-e54e-408f-8580-677ff4c3fd88
                Copyright © 2005 Jorm et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 January 2005
                : 9 July 2005
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article